The problem with capitalism
is that it is about profits.The guidance of financial groups such as the World
Bank and the International Monetary Fund is not for the sake of the masses, bur rather about returns upon investments.Around the world their intervention has resulted in economic decline—though
of course there are a few exceptions.—jk

Note on information gathering
and sourcesAmnesty International visited Zimbabwe in February and June 2004 to undertake research for this report.
Although Amnesty International was able to speak with a wide range of sources, many were unwilling to place comments on the
record for fear of reprisals. The repression of civil society, and the government’s attempts to block all information
which is seen as critical, has characterized the Zimbabwe crisis for four years. It has also been extremely difficult to travel in many rural areas since the inception of the
government’s fast-track land reform programme.

Amnesty International’s missionAt its 2001 International
Council Meeting in Dakar, Senegal, Amnesty International opened its old mandate, which focused on civil and political rights,
to a new mission: ''Amnesty International's mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending
grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination,
within the context of its work to promote all human rights.''

Amnesty International’s new mission draws no
distinction between civil and political rights on the one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights on the other.

Food
securityThe Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defines food security as follows: Food security exists when all
people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs
and food preferences for an active and healthy life. FAO identifies four conditions towards ensuring food security: adequacy
of food supply or availability; stability of supply without fluctuations or shortages from season to season or from year to
year; accessibility to food or affordability; and, quality and safety of food.

Food crisis The World Food
Programme uses the following broad definition of "food crisis": Food crisis is the incidence of serious food shortages across
a country, but where hunger deaths are rare, and the incidence of acute malnutrition is less than in a state of famine, but
there is a significant incidence of chronic malnutrition and the country is still unable to achieve food self reliance and
is significantly dependent on international aid.

ZimbabwePower and hunger
– violations of the right to food

1.
IntroductionAmnesty International has documented the deterioration in the human rights situation in Zimbabwe in numerous reports. (1) Since 2000 the government has used its supporters and state
agents to pursue a campaign of repression, aimed at eliminating opposition and silencing dissent. State-sponsored intimidation,
arbitrary arrest, torture and attacks on supporters of the political opposition, human rights defenders and the independent
media have escalated sharply. Laws have been introduced which restrict the rights to freedom of expression, association and
assembly, and prevent scrutiny of the government’s actions.

The escalation in human rights violations has taken
place against a backdrop of severe economic decline and acute food insecurity. Since 2002 millions of people in Zimbabwe have been dependent on local and international aid programmes for their access to
food; tens of thousands, however, are reported to have gone hungry, unable to gain access to food for a variety of reasons.

The
change in Zimbabwe’s food security situation has been dramatic. Until 2000 the
country regularly produced surplus grain for export (much of this to the rest of the region).(2) At this time the World Food
Programme’s (WFP) only operation in Zimbabwe was a procurement office from where it purchased Zimbabwean grain for food
aid programmes elsewhere in Africa.

While climatic factors, the HIV/AIDS pandemic and economic decline have all contributed
to the magnitude of food insecurity experienced in Zimbabwe, food security experts, including the WFP and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), have stated that government
policies and practices have also been a factor in the food crisis. The way in which the government’s "fast-track land
reform programme" has been implemented is a significant factor affecting domestic food production and the ability of millions
of people in Zimbabwe to access adequate food.(3) The fast-track land reform programme was launched shortly after the Zimbabwe
African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) government - which has been in power since independence in 1980 -
experienced it first major political defeat in a national referendum to change the constitution.

The government responded
to the food security crisis in Zimbabwe with
a range of policy measures, including requesting food aid from the international community and establishing controls on basic
food items. Reports from organizations involved in monitoring food security and human rights in Zimbabwe claim that the response
to the food crisis has been manipulated by the government for political gain.(4) The state-controlled Grain Marketing Board
(GMB) dominates the trade in and distribution of maize (the staple food) in Zimbabwe; its near monopoly on imports and its
poor distribution system have been criticized for undermining the availability of maize throughout the current food crisis.(5)
Discrimination in access to GMB grain has been very widely reported.(6)

In May 2004 the government of Zimbabwe stated
that the food crisis was over and told the United Nations (UN) and international donors that Zimbabwe no longer needed general
food aid.(7) Almost all independent monitors - and even some of the government’s own agencies - dispute the claim that
Zimbabwe’s 2004 harvest is sufficient to meet the country’s needs.(8) Local and international human rights groups,
as well as organizations involved in monitoring food security in Zimbabwe, believe the government’s claims are part
of a strategy to manipulate people through fear of hunger ahead of parliamentary elections scheduled for March 2005.(9)

The
government of Zimbabwe has a human rights obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the right to adequate food for all persons
under its jurisdiction. This report examines the extent to which the government has fulfilled its obligations over the past
four years. It examines a range of government policies, including the impact of the implementation of the fast-track land
reform programme, and the government’s management of the food crisis. Recommendations are made on how to ensure the
effective and full realization of the right to adequate food in Zimbabwe.

2. Background

2.1 A context of rising poverty and declining access to
foodBy the end of the 1980s Zimbabwe was
experiencing economic difficulties. Faced with poor economic performance and rising levels of debt, the government adopted
an Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP) in 1991.{The World bank & IMF plan these “reforms” and offer loans to venal governments
to promote their adoption--jk}(10) The ESAP, in Zimbabwe as elsewhere, was accompanied by a decline in incomes but
increases in the price of food and other essentials as markets were liberalized.(11) The implementation of the ESAP also had a negative impact on small-scale and communal farmers
as the removal of government subsidies on agricultural inputs such as seeds and fertilizer, and a reduction of public expenditure
on agricultural extension services, increased the cost of production. As a result of the withdrawal of state involvement in
marketing agricultural inputs, many small-scale farmers became dependent on middlemen, and were forced to sell their produce
at below-market prices. (12)

The launch of ESAP was immediately followed by a serious drought, in 1992. Although a
food aid programme supported by international donors helped to contain the ensuing food insecurity, the severity of the drought
undermined livelihoods and deepened poverty in many areas.(13) Poverty in Zimbabwe continued to increase throughout the 1990s.(14)

By
1997 almost three quarters of the population was estimated to be living below the national poverty line.(15) High levels of
unemployment and rising food prices contributed to social unrest and calls for political change.(16) This manifested itself
in increasingly vocal protest from civil society and growing discontent in the rural areas and among the war veterans movement
(those who fought in Zimbabwe’s war of liberation).(17)

In late 1997 the price of many basic food items including
maize, bread and cooking oil rose by between 17 and 42 percent.(18) On 19 January 1998 a further 21 per cent increase in the
price of maize meal sparked three days of riots across Zimbabwe.(19) The riots were brutally suppressed by the police and
the army. Human rights monitors reported that hundreds suffered serious injury and eight people died.(20)

Dissatisfaction
with the government grew following the decision to award large unbudgeted pensions to the war veterans in 1997, and Zimbabwe’s
intervention, in 1998, in the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), the cost of which exacerbated Zimbabwe’s
already serious foreign exchange shortages. At the same time both external and domestic debt levels were rising. (21) In 1999
Zimbabwe defaulted on foreign debt repayments. (22)

Growing discontent
with what was widely perceived as government corruption and mismanagement of the economy contributed to the emergence, in
1999, of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), the first real post-independence political opposition to ZANU-PF.(23)

In
February 2000 the government held a national referendum on a proposed new constitution. Among the government’s proposals
was a provision to allow it to acquire land for a land redistribution programme without paying compensation to the land owners
(discussed further below). A coalition of civil society groups, as well as the Commercial Farmers’ Union (which represented the majority of Zimbabwe’s white farmers) and the MDC, campaigned against the proposed new constitution, leading to the
government’s first major political defeat.

2.2 Land reform and commercial agriculture in ZimbabweAgriculture plays a vital role in the economy of Zimbabwe. More than 75 per cent of the population derives at least part of its livelihood from
agriculture. (24) Prior to the launch of the fast-track land reform programme in 2000 land distribution in Zimbabwe was highly
skewed, with just 4,500, mostly white, commercial farmers owning more than 11 million hectares of the land (more than a quarter
of the total land area). Commercial agriculture directly accounted for approximately 25 per cent of total formal employment
and 40 per cent of the country’s foreign exchange earnings.(25) Almost 40 per cent of Zimbabwe’s maize was produced
on commercial farms.(26)

Conversely, some one million black farmers had access to just 16 million hectares of land
(known as the communal areas), which is generally far less fertile and more drought-prone. Land distribution reflected Zimbabwe’s
colonial history.(27) Poverty and food insecurity in the communal farming areas has been directly linked to the poor quality
of the land and the high number of people dependent on a given area of land.(28)

2.3 A history of land acquisition
and food securityZimbabwe was colonized at the end of the 19th century by the British South Africa Company (BSA Co.),
operating under a Royal Charter granted by the British Crown. Under the terms of the Charter, the company was empowered to
exercise administrative authority and search for and exploit mineral deposits but not to settle the land. When the mineral
deposits proved far less than hoped for, the settlers turned to farming, but the uptake of land by white settlers was fiercely
resisted by the indigenous peoples in what is often referred to as the first Chimurenga (a Shona word meaning fight,
struggle or uprising).

In 1919, the Privy Council in London
ruled that all "unalienated" land in what was then Southern Rhodesia was CrownLand by right of conquest. Africans could only occupy land with the consent
of the Crown (which could be withdrawn) as "tenants at will". Thereafter, the BSA Co. purchased the land from the crown for
£2.3 million. In 1923, Southern Rhodesia was granted internal self government by the British government with
the land assets of the BSA Co. being vested in the new government. The voting franchise was based on a property or income
qualification, which included most whites but excluded almost all the indigenous people.

After the Second World War,
a nationalist movement began to emerge in Southern
Rhodesia. The main driving forces were the
unequal distribution of land, further forced removals to permit additional white settlement, and the oppressive policies of
the settler-dominated government. In 1965, the Rhodesian Front (RF) government of Ian Smith made a Unilateral Declaration
of Independence (UDI) in defiance of the wishes of the government of the United Kingdom (UK) that the colony extends the voting
franchise to a majority of the indigenous people before proceeding to independence. The UDI was followed by the Rhodesian
"bush war", or second Chimurenga, in which the armies of the two major nationalist parties – Zimbabwe African
National Union (ZANU) and the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) - fought an armed campaign against the Rhodesian
state. This ended with the Lancaster House conference in 1979, which led to the independence of Zimbabwe under a negotiated Constitution.

During the colonial period, land in what is
now Zimbabwe was apportioned on racial lines, with the white settlers having
a disproportionate share of the better land and Africans mostly allocated poorer land. In order to make space for the white
settlers, the colonial government forcibly evicted many Africans from their lands, to which they had strong spiritual attachment
in many cases, and resettled them on less productive land with higher population densities. Such removals continued until
the 1950s.

As a result of evident inequality and growing rural poverty among Africans, the land issue became a major
rallying point for the nationalist movement, which grew rapidly from 1960 onwards. Both major nationalist parties - ZAPU and
ZANU - promised radical land reform as a central element of their political platform.

In 1980, at the time of independence,
the 15.5 million hectares of land that comprised the large scale commercial farming area was occupied by about 6,000 white
farmers, giving an average size of holding of almost 2,600 hectares, although there was much variation in farm size. Much
of the land occupied by white farmers in these areas was not fully utilized, a fact often obscured by the overall profitability
and productivity of the commercial sector.(29)

Post independence land policyPolitical pressure for land
redistribution at independence was intense. However, among the terms of the Lancaster House constitution was a provision that
commercial farm land could not be acquired by the state for resettlement except on a "willing buyer, willing seller" basis
unless it was "underutilized".(30) The leaders of Zimbabwe’s nationalist movements were initially opposed to this provision.
The Chair of the conference, Lord Carrington, pledged on behalf of the UK government that the UK
would assist the new Zimbabwe government with the costs of a resettlement programme onto white-owned
commercial farmland. Another important factor which influenced the outcome of the negotiations was the fact that Zimbabwe
relied on white commercial farmers for 90 per cent of marketed food, in part because agricultural production on communal land
had been severely disrupted by the "anti-guerrilla" tactics of the Rhodesian Security Forces.(31) In attempting to stop the
armed nationalist groups from accessing support, including food, the security forces destroyed crops and moved rural people
away from their fields and into so-called "protected villages".(32)

After independence the new nationalist government
proceeded with land reform under the terms of the Lancaster House constitution, with farms purchased as available and beneficiaries
selected on grounds of ability to use the land effectively. The initial target, set in 1980, was to resettle 18,000 households
over five years. This was quickly trebled (in 1981) to 54,000 households and trebled again in 1982 to 162,000 households.(33)
This latter target proved unattainable.

By 1989, some 52,000 households had been resettled on 3.3 million hectares
of land(34). The UK contributed £47 million in direct grants and programme assistance to the land resettlement programme.(35)An
evaluation undertaken by the UK government’s Overseas Development Administration (ODA) in 1988 indicated that the resettled
areas were achieving much higher crop yields and hence farming incomes than the communal areas.(36) Land acquisition reportedly
represented approximately half the programme costs, with the balance accounted for by infrastructure and support services
such as water, schools and health facilities.

The Zimbabwe government was unable to maintain the initial momentum in the resettlement programme, mainly due to increasing
budget deficits and restrictions in the supply of foreign exchange, which compelled the government to cut back on expenditure.
Government salaries started to decline in relation to salaries in both the private sector in Zimbabwe and in neighbouring countries. As a result, the public service started to lose its
better qualified and more experienced professional and technical staff, who were highly employable elsewhere.(37)

In
1989, reportedly as a consequence of concerns regarding fiscal management and implementation delays related to the public
service "brain drain", the UK suspended further disbursements to the programme, with reportedly some £3 million unspent.(38)

The
role of the UK governmentSubstantive discussions between Zimbabwean officials and the ODA did not recommence until
the mid 1990s. In September 1996 an ODA appraisal mission was dispatched to the Zimbabwean capital, Harare. The mission proposed a land redistribution project targeted at the rural poor, aiming
to resettle between 25,000 and 35,000 households at an estimated cost of between £95 million and £145 million. Funding pledges
were to follow a donors’ conference.

Following the May 1997 General Election in the UK the Labour Party replaced the Conservative Party, which had been in government since
1979. The newly appointed Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short, communicated to Zimbabwe’s
then Minister of Agriculture and Land that the new Labour government did not feel the UK had any special obligation to fund
land purchase in Zimbabwe: "I should make it clear that we do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility
to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. We are a new Government from diverse backgrounds without links to former colonial
interests. My own origins are Irish and as you know we were colonized not colonizers." (39)

This letter was reportedly
very badly received by the Zimbabwean government, and apparently continues to be a source of discontent in the administration
of President Robert Mugabe.(40)

A donor conference with the government of Zimbabwe on land reform and resettlement finally took place in 1998, organized by the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP). In May 1999, a further UK mission (from the newly constituted Department for International
Development, DFID) arrived in Zimbabwe to examine the case for UK and European Union (EU) assistance to the proposed land
reform programme, including providing funds for land acquisition.

The mission reported that a number of issues needed
to be taken into account in deciding whether to support land reform. At the forefront of these was the high cost of doing
nothing. The government of Zimbabwe had made it clear that they would proceed with resettlement irrespective
of the donors’ decisions on support. The mission reported that without donor participation the programme was unlikely
to meet its social or economic objectives, would probably have greater environmental impacts, and the land allocation process
was likely to be abused. Donor support and participation could help to temper the programme and increase the likelihood of
it achieving its core goals, which the donors shared.(41)

Clare Short’s 1997 letter notwithstanding, the UK was
the only donor willing to consider funding land purchase in Zimbabwe, so UK participation was critical and the participation
of other donors, including the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United States, as well as the World Bank, all hinged on
UK participation.(42) All donors were reportedly concerned about governance issues in Zimbabwe and about Zimbabwe’s
role in the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo.(43) Allegations were also circulating that many senior members of ZANU-PF
were acquiring farms bought for resettlement with public funds. This allegation, which reportedly originated in the Commercial
Farmers’ Union(44), was investigated by DFID. The DFID team found that 15 farms
acquired by the government were occupied by senior army officers, cabinet ministers and senior civil servants. All were registered
in the name of the government and the DFID team was assured that title would not be transferred to the occupiers without payment.(45)

Then,
in January 2000 DFID announced that it would allocate £5 million for land resettlement projects through non-government channels.(46)
This decision, coming after what government of Zimbabwe saw as substantial delays to its plans and proposals, to stand aside
from the government’s programme and support civil society initiatives was considered a serious rebuff. Apart from derailing
the entire donor-supported programme, it gave support to civil society at a time when civil society movements were seen as
a significant threat to ZANU-PF’s chances of retaining power, a point underlined by the government’s defeat, just
one month later, in the February referendum on changing Zimbabwe’s Constitution. Furthermore, it meant that a central
promise of the liberation struggle could be realized without the direct involvement of ZANU-PF.

By the end of February
2000, war veterans, youth "militia" and ZANU-PF supporters had started to invade commercial farms. In many cases the occupations
were accompanied by violence and human rights violations.(47)

2.4 LandinvasionsLand
invasions have taken place in Zimbabwe at
various times since independence. Between 1980 and the late 1990s such land invasions were for the most part peaceful. Worsening
economic conditions in the late 1990s led to an increase in demand for land, and an increase in land invasions. From September
1997 onwards (and continuing well into 1998) there was a rash of spontaneous farm invasions, mostly by people from overcrowded
communal areas, but also by people from resettlement areas and the towns. Their motives were varied, including lack of access
to land, a wish to stake a claim to ancestral lands from which they had been evicted (including the wish to claim land upon
which ancestors’ graves are located) and to express dislike of individual farmers as well as a generalized protest at
the slow pace of reform and redistribution.(48) Few of these invasions were directed by politicians – to the contrary,
they were frequently used by the occupiers to extract concessions from politicians.(49)

In 2000 the nature of the invasions
changed. It is clear that from this point on the land invasions had government support and were politically organized. Vehicles
identified as belonging to the army, police and government agricultural departments reportedly delivered some of the land
invaders to farms.(50) In some cases people were reportedly coerced into occupation of land.(51) However, the entire effort
also had popular support, and it is clear that the motives of the occupiers were many and varied.(52)

Farm invasions
were in full and violent swing during the June 2000 parliamentary elections.(53) Amnesty International investigations at the
time concluded that the violence which accompanied the invasions was part of a broader pattern of violent intimidation of
those perceived to be opponents of or threats to ZANU-PF. Throughout the farm invasions, and despite court orders compelling
them to do so, police failed to act to protect farmers or farm workers from attack, eviction and destruction of property.
On 6 October 2000 the government declared a general amnesty for those who had engaged in political violence from 1 January
2000 to 31 July 2000, excluding the crimes of rape, murder and fraud, but including grievous bodily harm.(54)

2.5
The fast-track land reform programmeIn April 2000, despite its defeat in the February constitutional referendum, the
government amended the constitution to allow for land to be taken from commercial farmers without compensation for the cost
of the land (but with compensation for "improvements")(55). Land became a central issue in the 2000 parliamentary elections.
In its election campaigning material ZANU-PF stated: "ZANU PF has decided that 20 years is long enough to be polite
to white farmers and Britain
and has now started taking back your land following the passing of the Constitutional Amendment (Number 16 Act, 2000) by your
parliament."(56)

The fast-track land reform
programme was officially launched in July 2000, when some 3,000 farms were designated for compulsory acquisition. Once acquired
the land was resettled under two broad models: small-scale farms (known as A1 farms) were aimed at resettling people from
the over-crowded communal areas, while new commercial farms (known as A2 farms) were aimed at those with resources to invest
in commercial agricultural production.

Almost immediately the fast-track land reform programme was beset by legal and
administrative difficulties. Multiple court challenges by commercial farmers, an inadequate budget, political interference,
and unclear procedures for the allocation of land, contributed to chaos on the ground.(57)

In many areas of the country
implementation of the land reform programme was accompanied by the harassment of and violent assaults on commercial farmers
and farm workers. Some were forcibly removed from farms without due process, and with little or no distinction made between
farms officially designated for acquisition and those which were not.

Without donor funding the government was unable
to provide the newly resettled farmers with supporting infrastructure and services. In March 2001 Zimbabwe’s Foreign Minister, Stanislaus Mudenge, appealed to the UN Secretary General
"for urgent assistance by the various UN agencies as well as willing donors and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to assist
the resettled farmers who find themselves in dire need of infrastructure and facilities."(58) Donors however made clear that
funding was dependent on an end to farm invasions, a return to the rule of law and – for many donors – the implementation
of a more gradual land reform programme that did not include compulsory acquisition of farms.(59) The government reportedly
felt the conditions which some donors were imposing were intended to significantly curtail and slow-down land reform(60).
However, in September 2001 Foreign Minister Mudenge agreed to comply with many of the donor’s conditions at the Commonwealth
Foreign Ministers Conference in Abuja, Nigeria. In response, UK agreed to make substantial funds available to Zimbabwe to compensate displaced farmers and provide infrastructure in the resettled areas.
A further meeting was held in Harare at the end of October, but land invasions and violence continued
and the agreement collapsed.

Allegations of corruption in the land reform process have been reported. These allegations
include biased allocation of land, with the best land allocated as commercial farms to influential beneficiaries, while small-scale
farmers have been allocated relatively poor land.(61)

There has also been discrimination in the land allocation process.
Supporters of the MDC have been excluded from the land reform programme in many areas. Reports indicate that some MDC members
have been prevented from even applying for land.(62) The number of women allocated land under the fast-track land reform programme
is very low countrywide.(63) Women head approximately one-third of households in Zimbabwe. However, women-headed households
constituted just 18 per cent of beneficiaries of new small-scale farms and 12 per cent of beneficiaries of the new commercial
farms.(64) Farm workers have also been largely excluded from the benefits of land reform, an issue discussed in greater depth
in section 5 of this report.

In 2003 President Mugabe appointed a Land Review Committee to assess the fast-track land
reform programme. In its report the Committee highlighted numerous problems in programme implementation, including political
interference in the allocation of land and what it described as a "woefully inadequate" budget.(65)

The Presidential
Land Review Committee also noted that the fast-track land reform programme had failed to achieve one of its main objectives:
that of reducing population pressure in the communal areas.(66) According to the Committee’s report very few communal
areas had seen any significant reduction in population numbers.

Implementation of the fast-track land reform programme
coincided periods of flooding and of severe drought in Zimbabwe, which undermined agriculture and food security. Just months before the official launch of the fast track
program floods in eastern Zimbabwe, caused by Cyclone Eline had resulted in some 63,000 hectares of
crops being washed away.(67) In 2002 a region-wide drought made international headlines as millions across southern Africa faced starvation.

3. Domestic and international legal framework on the right to food

3.1
National lawThe right to adequate food is not specifically recognized in the either the constitution or laws of Zimbabwe.
An international treaty does not form part of the law of Zimbabwe unless it has been incorporated through an Act of Parliament. Although Zimbabwe acceded to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR),
which enshrines the right to food, in 1991, it has yet to be incorporated into domestic law.

As a consequence of this
the ICESCR cannot be invoked directly before the Zimbabwean courts. This situation is inconsistent with the recommendation
by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights that the government of Zimbabwe should appropriately reflect the obligations under the ICESCR in domestic law and
policy, and ensure access to the courts to uphold the relevant rights(68).

3.2 International lawThe right
to adequate food is enshrined in the ICESCR, to which Zimbabwe is party. It is an important component of the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living. The right to adequate
food is fundamental for the enjoyment of all human rights, including those enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR), the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), the African Charter on the Rights
and Welfare of the Child, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention on the Elimination of all forms
of Discrimination Against Women, to all of which Zimbabwe is party.

Article 11 of the ICESCR establishes "the right
of everyone to an adequate standard of living…including adequate food" and recognizes "the fundamental right of everyone
to be free from hunger".

States parties to the ICESCR must ensure that "every man, woman and child, alone or in community
with others, has physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement."(69)States parties
have a core obligation to take the necessary action to mitigate and alleviate hunger as provided for under the ICESCR, even
in times of economic recession(70). States must take steps to achieve progressively the full realization of economic, social
and cultural rights, including the right to adequate food. Achievement of this objective is subject to resource availability,
but the ICESCR also establishes a core or minimum obligation for states "to ensure for everyone under its jurisdiction access
to the minimum essential food which is sufficient, nutritionally adequate and safe, to ensure their freedom from hunger."(71)
A state thus has an obligation to move as expeditiously as possible towards the full realization of the right to food as well
as to ensure the minimum essential level of food to be free from hunger. Furthermore, the ICESCR imposes obligations on states
parties to take the course which would achieve fulfilment of the rights in the shortest possible period of time. Since the
essence of progress is continuity, any deliberate retrogressive measure would invariably require the most careful consideration.

As
the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has made clear,"any deliberately retrogressive measures in
that regard would require the most careful consideration and would need to be fully justified by reference to the totality
of the rights provided for in the Covenant and in the context of the full use of the maximum available resources."(72)

This
includes showing that, "it has unsuccessfully sought to obtain international support to ensure the availability and accessibility
of the necessary food".(73)

Moreover, States must ensure the availability and accessibility of adequate
food.(74)

"Availability" consists of the possibilities either for feeding oneself directly from productive land or
other natural resources, or from well-functioning distribution, processing and market systems that can move food from the
site of production to where it is needed in accordance with demand.(75)

"Accessibility" of adequate food includes both
economic and physical accessibility.(76)

Obligations to respect, protect and fulfil the right to adequate foodThe
government of Zimbabwe has an obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the right to adequate food.

1.The obligation to respect existing access to adequate food
requires States parties to refraining from any measures that result in preventing or undermining such access.

2.The obligation to protect requires measures by States to ensure
that other actors do not deprive individuals of their access to adequate food.

3.The obligation to fulfill has two elements. Firstly to facilitate,meaning the State must proactively engage in activities aimed at strengthening people's access to and utilization of resources
and means to ensure their livelihood, including food security. The second element is to provide, meaning States are
obliged to provide food to those who are unable, for reasons beyond their control, to enjoy the right to adequate food by
the means at their disposal. Even in times of severe resource constraints the right to adequate food of vulnerable members
of society must be protected by the adoption of relatively low-cost targeted programmes.(77)

The African
Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has identified violations of the right to adequate food in terms of these three
types of governmental obligation.

"Governments have a duty to protect their citizens, not only through appropriate
legislation and effective enforcement but also by protecting them from damaging acts that may be perpetrated by private parties.
(…) The African Charter and international law require and bind [states] to protect and improve existing food
sources and to ensure access to adequate food for all citizens. (…) the right to food requires that the [government]
should not destroy or contaminate food sources. It should not allow private parties to destroy or contaminate food sources,
and prevent peoples’ effort to feed themselves."(78)

Non-discrimination and equal protectionThe
ICESCR provides that: "The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated
in the present Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."(79)

Thus, the Committee
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, responsible for ensuring States parties compliance with the ICESCR, has stated that
any discrimination in access to food as well as to means and entitlements for its procurement on grounds such as political
or other opinion, national or social origin or other status, with the purpose of nullifying or impairing the equal enjoyment
of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to adequate food, constitutes a violation of the Covenant.(80)This
obligation is considered capable of immediate application.(81) In order to satisfy the obligation, states are required not
only to prohibit discrimination in law, but to monitor and address any discrimination in fact.

The ICCPR(82), which
Zimbabwe has ratified, provides that all persons are equal before the law
and are entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination.

International cooperationAll UN
member states are obliged to take joint and separate action for the purposes of achieving universal respect for and observance
of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to adequate food, for all without distinction.(83) The Committee
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has said that in implementing this commitment states parties to the ICESCR should
take steps to respect the enjoyment of the right to food in other countries, to protect that right, to facilitate access to
food and to provide the necessary aid when required. This is the case particularly to ensure realization of minimum essential
levels of economic, social and cultural rights, including freedom from hunger, through food aid where necessary.(84)

The
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has also emphasized that "food should never be used as an instrument of
political and economic pressure."(85)

Humanitarian assistanceStates which offer humanitarian assistance,
either directly or through international organizations, must do so on the basis of non-discrimination, and should actively
target the most vulnerable groups.(86)

Offers of humanitarian assistance from impartial humanitarian agencies are not
to be considered unfriendly acts, and are therefore not contrary to Article 2(7) of the UN Charter (non-interference in the
domestic affairs of a member state).(87)

In addition, Amnesty International considers that where a State arbitrarily
denies its consent to humanitarian assistance, when it is unable or unwilling to carry out its obligations to ensure adequate
food, this constitutes a violation of the ICESCR.(88)

4. Land reform and human rightsThe need for land reform
in many parts of the world in order to realize human rights, including the right to an adequate standard of living and the
right to food, has been acknowledged by human rights experts. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has recommended "effective
land redistribution programmes in situations in which extreme land concentration prevents people from being able to feed themselves"(89).
The Foodfirst Information and Action Network (FIAN), an international human rights organization that campaigns for the realization
of the right to adequate food, has also argued for land reform as "an important policy measure of government in moving progressively
towards realising the right to adequate food by guaranteeing access to productive resources".(90)

Effective land reform
programmes can be fundamental to giving vulnerable groups such as landless rural people and farm workers access to adequate
food by providing land – which is "the means for its procurement".(91) The Global Campaign for Agrarian Reform, an initiative
of FIAN and La Vía Campesina, a world-wide network of peasant organizations and landless peoples' organizations, sees
"special programmes" for such groups as essential in realising economic access to food.

However, programmes to redistribute
land must be based on human rights principles. States have an obligation, entrenched in international human rights law, to
identify individuals or groups whose human rights may be negatively affected by land reform and to take steps to minimize
negative impacts. Particular attention should be paid to mitigating negative impacts on vulnerable groups.

Given the
dominant role of agriculture in food security in many parts of the world land reform programmes which may impact on agricultural
production should include safeguards to protect the availability of and access to adequate food, both in the short-term and
longer-term. In formulating and implementing land reform programmes states should ensure that the rule of law is upheld, and
that the rights – including to freedom from discrimination and equal protection of the law – of all persons within
the state’s jurisdiction are respected.

4.1 Farm invasions, land reform and the rule of law When the
countrywide occupation of commercial agricultural land by state-sponsored war veterans, ''militia'' and landless peasants
began in February 2000, the Commercial Farmers’ Union initiated an application before the High Court to declare the
occupations illegal and force the police to evict the occupiers. On 17 March 2000, the High Court declared the occupation of farms by those who claimed a right to do so simply
in order to demonstrate against Zimbabwe's inequity
in land distribution was unlawful, and directed Police Commissioner Augustine Chihuri to instruct his officers to enforce
an order for those occupiers to vacate the land within 24 hours. Judge Paddington Garwe specifically directed the Police Commissioner
to disregard any instructions contrary to the ruling.(92)

Although Police Commissioner Chihuri had consented to the
order, he later applied to the court to amend it on the grounds that he lacked enough manpower to remove those in unlawful
occupation, and argued that the occupation was a political matter needing a political rather than a legal solution. The High
Court refused his request(93), but the Police Commissioner still failed to obey the order.

The Supreme Court issued
another order on 10 November 2000, declaring the entry
of uninvited persons on commercial farming properties unlawful. It required the respondents, including the Ministers of Agriculture
and Home Affairs and the Police Commissioner - and those under their control - not to give sanction to the entry or continued
occupation of farms by persons involved in resettlement until all the legal requirements and procedures had been fulfilled.
Government officials and the police appeared to ignore this order, as they had the previous court orders.

On 21 December 2000, the Supreme Court noted that: " The rule of law has been
overthrown in the commercial farming areas and farmers and farm workers on occupied farms have been denied the protection
of the law."(94)

In April 2001 the government introduced the Rural Land Occupiers (Protection from Eviction) Act.
Under this Act land occupations which had been declared illegal by the Supreme Court were made legal, and provisions in the
Act were made retroactive. The Act provided that anyone who had taken up occupation of rural land on or before 1 March 2001
in anticipation of resettlement and who was still occupying that land on the date of commencement of the Act was a "protected
occupier". Persons so designated were protected from eviction, for a minimum of six months in most cases. The Act further
removed the possibility of legal action against a "protected occupier" for trespass, or damages in relation to trespass.

In
July 2001 the Chief Justice, Anthony Gubbay, resigned following government attempts to undermine the judiciary.(95) He was
replaced by Chief Justice Chidyausiku, who reversed earlier Supreme Court rulings made in 2000 and 2001.

In contrast
to the farm invasions the fast-track land reform programme was based on already existing provisions in national legislation.
The 1992 Land Acquisition Act specified the legal procedure to be followed by the acquiring authority in the compulsory acquisition
of land and included provision for judicial review of compulsory acquisition orders.(96) However, the way in which the fast-track
land reform programme was introduced and implemented resulted in digressions from procedures laid down in the Act. The majority
of commercial farmers successfully challenged the compulsory acquisition orders on the grounds that the specified procedures
for notification were not followed.

In November 2001 the government amended the 1992 Land Acquisition Act.(97) The
amendment effectively gave the government immediate rights to land designated for compulsory acquisition, before the Courts
ruled on any challenge. The amendment was made retroactive to May 2000. The constitutional legality of this amendment has
been challenged by farmers in Zimbabwe.(98) Indeed in 2003 the Presidential Land Review Committee noted that there was: "a
major contradiction observed as between the 1992 Land Acquisition Act as amended, which provides for the compulsory acquisition
of land, and the provision embedded in the Constitution which requires that such acquisition be confirmed by the Administrative
Court. This contradiction ought to be removed". (99)

The 2001 amendment also stated that while the legal occupier
of a designated property would still be entitled to three months to vacate "land other than agricultural land required for
resettlement", the notice period to vacate agricultural land was reduced to 45 days.

On 10 May 2002 the government notified some 3,000 commercial farms of its intention to acquire their
farms. However, many farmers challenged the acquisition orders in the High Court, on grounds that the orders were invalid
because they had not been served in accordance with the stipulated procedure(100); among the issues raised was the fact that
the government had failed to notify mortgage holders.

Another amendment to the Land Acquisition Act was drafted to
address this problem. The amendment, introduced in September 2002(101), allowed the government to re-issue acquisition orders
(including those that had been invalidated by High Court rulings). It also allowed the government to give just seven days’
notice to vacate the property in cases where 90 days had elapsed since the service of the previous – invalid –
acquisition order.

In the same month the Minister for Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Patrick Chinamasa was
quoted in a local newspaper saying that: "if new challenges come we will not hesitate to go to parliament to plug the
loopholes."(102)In 2004 the government introduced yet another amendment to the Land Acquisition Act. This amendment
removes the need to serve a personal notice on owners of land designated for compulsory acquisition (or any other person who
under the original Act has a legal right to be notified in person); publication in the government gazette and one newspaper
is deemed sufficient. This provision was made retroactive, to May 2000, and effectively overturned the earlier court rulings.
Clause 9 (2) of the amendment states that the criteria used to exclude land from compulsory acquisition (for example major
export-oriented enterprises and farms which specialized in growing agricultural seeds were supposed to be excluded) under
the land reform programme were not binding, and such land could be acquired under the programme.

The 2004 Amendment
was passed by parliament despite adverse reports by parliamentary scrutiny groups. The Parliamentary Legal Committee described
several provisions of the amendment as unconstitutional.(103) The Portfolio Committee on Lands, Agriculture, Water, Development,
Rural Resources and Resettlement stated:"It appears to your Committee that the provision of Clause 9 was motivated
by the need to regularize inconsistencies arising from the failure of the Ministry of Lands Agriculture and Rural Resettlement
to implement the land reform programme in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act. It is your Committee’s
view that this will not auger well for the future of agriculture in the country." (104)

Amnesty International’s
conclusions on the rule of law Starting with the land invasions in early 2000 and continuing throughout the implementation
of land reform programme, the government has subverted the rule of law. Court orders which contradicted government policy
have been ignored, and the independence of the judiciary undermined. The police force has been misused for political ends.
Commercial farmers and farm workers have been denied equal protection of law. The use of legislation which contains retroactive
clauses has undermined the predictability of the law.

The breakdown in the rule of law in Zimbabwe has exacerbated economic decline as both foreign and domestic investment has shrunk.(105)
Commercial farmers, whether on farms designated for official acquisition or not, operate in an environment characterized by
considerable insecurity. Unable to rely on the protection of the law commercial farmers remaining on their land have reduced
their investment in crop production. For example, a key constraint to production of wheat and barley, noted by the Commercial
Farmers’ Union in early 2004, was concern among farmers that they would not be allowed to harvest the crops they planted.(106)

The
breakdown in the rule of law in Zimbabwe has also reportedly had an impact on newly resettled farmers. For example, in some
cases small-scale farmers have been resettled only to be moved off their new plots to make way for more influential people.(107)
Newly resettled farmers do not have security of tenure, as they neither own the land nor have leases. All land acquired as
part of the fast-track land reform programme belongs to the government.

4.2 The impact
of farm invasions and the implementation of the land reform programme on the right to foodThe UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states that it considers
that the core content of the right to adequate food implies:The availability of food in a quantity and quality sufficient
to satisfy the dietary needs of individuals…The accessibility of such food in ways that are sustainable and
that do not interfere with the enjoyment of other rights.

The Committee has explicitly linked these to the obligation
to ensure sustainable food security and to strengthen peoples’ access to resources (such as land) and means to ensure
their livelihood, including food security.(108)

Throughout Zimbabwe’s current food crisis there have been problems
of both access to and availability of food. Some of the problems can be directly related to the way in which the fast-track
land reform programme was implemented.

Impact of farm invasions and the implementation of the fast-track land reform
programme on food availabilityBoth the farm invasions and the way in which the fast-track land reform programme was
implemented have contributed to a reduction in the domestic production of both food and export crops in Zimbabwe.

The
land invasions and forced removal of commercial farmers and farm workers by war veterans and supporters of ZANU-PF caused
an almost immediate decline in the land area cultivated. Many of the ‘settlers’ who took part in farm invasions
were not intended as permanent occupiers and did not engage in any significant agricultural production on the land they occupied.(109)
As one Zimbabwean agricultural expert commented, the political thinking behind land invasions appears to have been "occupy
first, worry about production later".(110)

On 28 April 2000 the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported on
the land invasions and their likely impact on food security:"Over the past few weeks, groups of independence war veterans
and others have attacked owners of these farms and their employees, inflicting serious injuries to many and even killing some,
and burning crops in fields and stores. This has created a climate of fear amongst the farmers, many of whom have abandoned
their farms… These events are taking place at a time when the farmers should be harvesting, processing and marketing
their crops, particularly maize, the country's staple food, and tobacco, the top foreign exchange earner. It is also the time
to start preparing for planting the wheat crop in June/July… There is, therefore, growing concern that if the violence
continues, there will be a serious drop in food production and supply, jeopardizing national food security. While the impact
of the disturbances on the food supply situation may be significant this year, it may be felt more severely next year."
(111)

Further disruption to commercial agriculture followed with designation of some 3,000 farms for compulsory acquisition
under the fast-track land reform programme in July 2000. As noted earlier the majority of commercial farmers challenged compulsory
land acquisition. The government was apparently unable to address the volume of legal challenges and acquisition orders lapsed.
As a result many farmers remained on their land, although in situations of great uncertainty.(112) Some, however, were forcibly
evicted. Many of those farmers who remained on their land pending the outcomes of court action reduced production, or stopped
planting altogether, because of uncertainty about the future.(113) In some cases farmers still resident on their farms were
told by the authorities they could not engage in production.(114)

During the second year of implementation of the fast-track
land reform programme drought resulted in widespread crop failure across southern Africa. On 26 April 2002 President Mugabe
declared a State of Disaster in all communal lands, resettlement and urban areas.(115) Noting the impact on food security
the WFP stated that: "From June, more than 5 million people will need food aid, increasing to 6.1 million from December.
The extremely poor main growing season has been caused by a combination of severe drought between January and April in many
parts of the country and the near collapse of large-scale commercial production due to land reform activities."(116)

Despite
the State of Disaster, on 10 May 2002 the government notified
some 3,000(117) commercial farmers of its intention to acquire their farms and gave them 45 days to cease farming. Many farmers
went to the High Court and challenged the orders. However, they were reluctant to invest in the production of winter wheat(118),
largely because of fears they would be evicted before they could harvest their crops. Wheat (as bread) is Zimbabwe’s
"second staple" food(119); prior to the implementation of the fast-track land reform programme the bulk of Zimbabwe’s
domestic wheat production took place under irrigation on commercial farms.(120)

As noted earlier, the climate of uncertainty
which accompanied the land reform programme also affected agricultural production in the newly resettled and communal areas.
This uncertainty is reported to be one factor in the decision taken by some communal households that were allocated land under
the programme to split the household, sending some members to the new land while others, often women and children, remained
on the communal land holding. This decision to split household labour resources has reportedly had a negative impact on the
ability of such households to engage in crop production in both their communal and new land holdings.(121) In many cases draught
animals were left behind in the communal areas, which also affected the ability of the household members on the newly resettled
farms to plough their land.(122)

Zimbabwe’s domestic food production capacity was further reduced by the fact
that significant amounts of land allocated under the fast-track land reform programme were not actually taken up. According
to the Presidential Land Review Committee report, while beneficiary take-up of small-scale farms (known as A1 farms) was 97
per cent, take-up of new commercial farms (A2 farms) was just 66 per cent.(123) As the Committee’s report noted, this
implied "a considerable amount of land lying fallow or unused."(124) This was at a time when approximately half of Zimbabwe’s population needed food aid.

Various reasons were given for the low
take-up of A2 farms. These included administrative problems, such as beneficiaries not receiving allocation letters. The Presidential
Land Review Committee also reported on irregularities in land allocation, including political interference and land being
allocated by both local and national level authorities using unknown criteria.(125)

Another possible factor which may
have contributed to farm land allocated under the fast-track land reform programme not being used productively is that some
of those allocated land under the new commercial farm (A2) model were not farmers, and did not proceed to reside on the farms
allocated to them. Dubbed ‘cell phone farmers’ or ‘weekend farmers’ these beneficiaries of the land
reform programme are civil servants, soldiers, businessmen or other categories of urban dwellers.(126)

The ability
of most farmers in Zimbabwe to cultivate land has been further hampered over the past two to three years by lack of access
to the inputs needed to engage in production, particularly seeds and fertilizer.(127) Access to seed and fertilizer has been
constrained by both shortages and high prices.(128) While there are many causes for shortages and escalating prices, implementation
of the fast-track land reform programme exacerbated the problem. For example, farms which specialized in producing seeds were
not effectively protected from farm invasions and this reduced domestic seed availability. (129) One factor in the shortage
of fertilizer is insufficient foreign exchange to import the required amount of potash and other components.(130) In turn
Zimbabwe’s already critical shortage of foreign exchange has been exacerbated by the manner of the implementation of
the land reform programme, which resulted in reduced production of foreign exchange-earning export crops such as tobacco.(131)

Security
of tenure is also a significant issue for many farmers. At present all land acquired under the fast-track land reform programme
belongs to the government. As a result newly resettled farmers face difficulties when they wish to access credit in order
to invest in production. The absence of security of tenure also has a significant impact on investment and therefore production
decisions.(132)

Forced evictionsSince September 2004 thousands of families who took up occupation of commercial
farms during the land invasions of 2000 have been forcibly evicted. These evictions have reportedly taken place without due
process of law. Representatives of families evicted from one farm in Mashonaland West on 24 and 25 September 2004 claim that police burnt their homes and property. As a result of
the forced evictions, thousands of people are now living by the side of the road, without access to food or shelter.(133)

Impact
of fast-track land reform on access to foodThe UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in elaborating
the issue of access to food, is clear that food must be both physically and economically accessible. Economic accessibility
means that people should be able to access food as a result of their economic activities, for example through agriculture
or wage-labour. However, the manner in which the fast-track programme was implemented has undermined the economic activities
through which some of Zimbabwe’s population gains access to food.

Some 70 per cent
of farm workers have lost jobs as a direct result of the implementation of the fast-track land reform programme over the past
four years, and with it their ability to pay for food, health care and education.(134) Thousands more workers are believed
to have lost jobs in related industries. According to the Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries (CZI), companies whose businesses
depend on raw materials from the farming sector have been badly affected by the disruption in that sector. They include millers,
bakeries and clothing and textile concerns. In 2002 the CZI said large-scale millers had retrenched more than 50 percent of
their staff and had closed some of their branches.(135)

Increasing unemployment has been accompanied by steeply rising
food prices. The drop in domestic food production is a significant factor in pushing up food prices.(136) The Consumer Council
of Zimbabwe (CCZ) has repeatedly warned that the high level of inflation was putting food beyond the reach of many poor households.(137)
Substantial price increases have been regularly reported over the last four years. For example the price of a loaf of bread
increased fourfold in one week in July 2003.(138) The CCZ has also reported a widening gap between the minimum wage and the
monthly basket of basic household items.

Amnesty International’s conclusions on the impact of land invasions
and the implementation of the fast-track land reform programme on the right to foodWhile land reform is a significant
and legitimate concern for many people in Zimbabwe, particularly those eking out a living on over-populated and depleted communal
lands, the government of Zimbabwe’s decision to launch the fast-track land reform programme was prompted not by a desire
to realize human rights but by a desire to maintain power. Facing the possibility of defeat in the 2000 parliamentary elections
the launch of the fast-track land reform programme served as an "electoral carrot", while the farm invasions allowed ZANU-PF
supporters to conduct a campaign of harassment and violence directed towards supporters of the political opposition.

The
government’s obligations under international human rights law to guarantee the right to adequate food for everyone within
its jurisdiction means that the government is obliged to take cognisance of any likely negative impacts of its policies on
availability of, and access to, adequate food. The evidence gathered by Amnesty International suggests that there was almost
no attempt to determine what the negative consequences of implementation of the fast-track land reform programme on availability
of or access to food might be; consequently there was no effort made to mitigate those negative consequences.

The implementation
of the fast-track land reform programme has reduced overall food availability in Zimbabwe. It has also contributed to undermining economic access to food for a number of groups:
those who lost work in agriculture and closely related industries; farmers whose ability to cultivate their land has been
undermined by the shortage and high price of inputs; urban populations and others reliant on the market for access to food
who have seen prices increase as a consequence of scarcity.

When the entire southern Africa
region was affected by severe drought in the 2001/2 agricultural season, the government took no steps to protect domestic
crop production. On the contrary, during some of the worst periods of food insecurity experienced in Zimbabwe since independence, significant areas of fertile land went unplanted, and thousands
of people were made unemployed.

5. Vulnerability and the right to foodA number of human rights instruments
recognize the particular problems of vulnerability of different groups, and place specific obligations on states to combat
discrimination against such groups.

Socially vulnerable groups such as landless persons and other particularly impoverished
segments of the population may require special attention and sometimes priority consideration with respect to accessibility
of food.

When implementing a policy which may affect access to adequate food the government is obliged to identify
those most likely to be affected by that policy and take appropriate steps to mitigate the negative consequences. This obligation
becomes particularly acute when those affected by that government policy already constitute a vulnerable group.

5.1
The case of farm workersAmongst those most dramatically and negatively affected by the implementation of the fast-track
land reform programme is Zimbabwe’s farm worker population. As a direct result of the way in
which the land reform programme was implemented the majority of farm workers have lost their jobs or seen stable permanent
or contract jobs replaced by highly unstable "piece work"(139); thousands have also lost their homes and access to farm-based
education and health care. However, very few farm workers have benefited from the land reform programme. Less than five per
cent of farm workers received land.(140)

In 2000 Zimbabwe’s farm worker population comprised some 320,000 –
350,000 workers, which represented one quarter of the formal work force, and 1.8 - 2 million dependents.(141) For the majority
of farm workers access to food, clothing and housing has been based on their employment. Food and clothing were purchased;
housing came with the job, as did access to some form of education and health care.(142) The new farmers, whose operations
are on a very different scale to the large scale commercial farmers, are not in a position to absorb the majority of the unemployed
farm workers. Newly resettled small-scale (A1) farmers generally use family labour or employ small numbers of workers on a
short-term basis. The new commercial (A2) farmers do provide employment, but with more than 30 per cent of such farms not
being taken up, this limits the employment opportunities on new commercial farms. While the farm workers complain of unemployment,
many of the newly resettled farmers and the government have claimed there is a labour shortage in the newly resettled areas.
Farm workers are reported to be reluctant to work for the new farmers because the payment offered is very low, and in some
cases payment has been delayed or not made at all.(143) Farm workers who spoke with Amnesty International in June 2004 claimed
that new farmers for whom they had done "piece work" had failed to pay them or had paid them only after a long delay. As a
consequence they left the farm to seek other means of supporting themselves.

The likely impact of land reform on the
food security of farm workers was made clear before the programme was undertaken. A survey of commercial farm workers carried
out in 1999 by the Farm Community Trust of Zimbabwe, a local NGO, stated that a total of 323,000 farm workers would be affected
by the proposed farm acquisitions, including 144,450 permanent farm workers. The survey noted that: "If these workers
are not given their own plots of land, about 84,000 households will be dislocated. Most of the farm workers do not maintain
communal homes."

The same report stated: "The resettlement exercise will have an immediate impact on the
food security of farm workers by disrupting their source of income (wages) and livelihoods."(144)

During the farm
invasions farm workers were regularly victims of violence and intimidation and many became displaced from their homes. Some
migrated to former homes in the communal areas, or to informal settlements on the margins of the towns. However, when the
growing displacement of farm workers was registered as a problem the government stated that they should remain in their homes
on farms taken over as part of the fast-track land reform programme(145). The majority of farm workers therefore live on newly
resettled farm land, as they do not have (and have never known) any other home. Those remaining in their homes on newly resettled
farms have no security of tenure. Relations between the new farmers and the farm workers are tense, with conflict reported
in some areas(146).

Approximately one quarter of the farm worker population is of foreign origin, tracing their roots
back to neighbouring countries.(147) Those of foreign decent do not have right of access to land in communal areas. Reports
indicate that they are also unable to access land through the land reform programme.(148)

The vulnerability of farm
workers is compounded by the high prevalence of HIV/AIDS within this community. More than one quarter of the farm worker population
may be affected, and women are believed to have a higher prevalence than men. Within the farm worker community there are a
significant number of households headed by orphans, and such households are extremely vulnerable.(149)

Amnesty International’s
conclusion on the impact of land invasions and the implementation of the fast-track land reform programme on farm workersThe
way in which the fast-track land reform programme was implemented has highlighted long-term problems in terms of the rights
of farm workers. Although the government of Zimbabwe is responsible for ensuring the realization of farm workers’ (and
their families’) human rights, it has long ignored them, leaving food, education and health provision to the discretion
of the commercial farmer, without effectively regulating the quality of service provision. Whilst international human rights
law does not require the State to provide all services necessary for the realization of economic, social and cultural rights,
it must ensure that such services are adequately available, accessible and acceptable.

The government has an obligation
to take steps to safeguard the rights of socially vulnerable groups, such as farm workers. By implementing the fast-track
programme in the way that it did, with no action to mitigate the negative consequences for farm workers, the government’s
action not only constitutes a clear failure to respect existing access to food, but is retrogressive in terms of farm
workers’ right to food (and several other rights). According to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
retrogressive measures "require the most careful consideration and would need to be fully justified by reference to the totality
of the rights provided for in the Covenant." No such justification exists in the case of farm workers in Zimbabwe.

The government’s failure to prevent violent land invasions and the forced
removal of farm workers from their homes and sole source of livelihood constitutes a clear failure to protect the right
to food of farm workers, as well as several other rights, including the rights to work, to adequate housing and to equal protection
of the law.

The government has also failed in its obligation to fulfil the right to food. By excluding the majority
of farm workers, and their families, from the possibility of being allocated land under the fast-track programme on an equal
basis with others in the population, the government excluded farm workers from the opportunity to feed themselves and their
families.

Farm workers, a historically marginalized community, should be the subject of special measures of protection.
In particular they should not be excluded from the possibility of receiving land under any land reform programme, irrespective
of their citizenship. Differential treatment on the basis of citizenship is permitted only in respect of certain civil and
political rights, and economic rights in developing countries. It is not legitimate to deny a section of the population access
to the means of sustaining themselves and their families on that basis.(150)

Food security and access to land: Case
study(151) "CK" is 70 years old. She lives on a former large-scale commercial farm, where she has lived and worked
all her life. When she retired the farmer gave CK a small piece of land for her food needs on the edge of the farm and a small
stipend to support herself and her husband in their old age. He assured her that she would always have a place to stay on
the farm.

Over the period 2000 - 2003, all of CK's children and their partners died of AIDS, leaving 12 grandchildren
ranging from three to 16 years old in her care.In 2003 the farm was acquired for resettlement and the farmer was forced to
leave. The farm was subdivided and new farmers were allocated these plots. CK and the other farm workers from the farm were
permitted to stay in their houses, but the land they had been using was included in the resettlement package and allocated
to someone else. None of the farm workers were allocated plots.

The farmer is no longer able to offer the support he
used to. CK now finds herself without any way to support herself and her family. She does not have land to grow her own food,
and was refused entry to the government "food for work" programme and is refused an allocation of maize from the government
controlled Grain Marketing Board. The newly resettled farmers offer work and the children often do magwaza (piece work),
but at very low rates of pay. "The new farmers call us ‘sell outs’ and say that we refuse to work for them because
we are enemies of the government and support the whites". But the main reason that the family is reluctant to do this work
is because the pay is much lower than can be earned through vending and because they are "treated so badly".

6.
Addressing the food crisis: government policy and practiceAccording to assessments by the Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) and the World Food Programme (WFP) food insecurity has been a serious problem in Zimbabwe since 2001. The food security situation worsened following a severe drought in 2002,
which affected much of the southern Africa region. More than half of Zimbabwean’s population was considered
"food insecure" in 2002. Although a joint FAO/WFP crop and food security assessment reported some improvement in 2003, almost
half the population was still unable to access adequate food.(152)

In an effort to address the problem the government
introduced price controls(153) in October 2001, and the following month appealed to the international community for food aid.
The government also operates social safety net programmes such as food or cash for work schemes, and some targeted nutrition
programmes. Amnesty International’s investigations into the efficacy of the government’s response suggest
that a number of government policies and actions, while increasing the government’s control over food, have exacerbated
problems of availability and access for significant numbers of people.

6.1 The role of the Grain Marketing BoardWhile
price controls were imposed on many basic food stuffs, the government took a further step regarding the control of maize,
the staple food in Zimbabwe. In July 2001 the government stipulated that maize, wheat, and their
milled products, were controlled commodities, and that the parastatal Grain Marketing Board (GMB) was the sole buyer and seller
of maize and wheat.(154) The government’s effective prohibition on private imports of maize has been strongly criticized
for contributing to food shortages. In a 2003 interview, WFP Country Director, Kevin Farrell, stated:"Throughout this
crisis, WFP has advocated for policy change in food marketing, since we believe that letting private traders import and sell
food on the market would help to meet a good part of the food gap… If tomorrow, private traders were allowed to import
and sell maize, we believe it would certainly help get more food supplies into the market - and that would take some of the
pressure off both the government's capacity and the humanitarian response. But there would still be a need for a safety net,
since prices may rise for a time and there would still be some people who could not afford to buy the food - but the numbers
who could not buy food would be much more manageable."(155)

In late 2002 and early 2003 the government relaxed
food import restrictions to allow some NGOs and private traders to import limited amounts of grain. However, the majority
of imports still come through the GMB.

As well as largely preventing private traders from importing maize the GMB monopoly
has prevented traders and private persons from moving domestically-produced maize from areas of surplus to areas of shortage.
Farmers are required to sell their surplus grain to the GMB. Grain transported from the rural areas to the towns has been
confiscated by the GMB at road blocks.(156) These movement restrictions have exacerbated the problem of low availability of
maize in many parts of the country throughout the present food crisis.(157) Restrictions on the internal movement of maize
have also been relaxed in 2003 and 2004.(158) However, these measures have also had a limited impact on availability of and
access to food.

The UN Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights makes clear that one component of the ‘availability
of adequate food’ is a well functioning distribution system. However, despite its monopoly the GMB’s national
distribution system is reported to be very inadequate. It has been repeatedly criticized by local and international food security
monitors.(159)

In July 2003 the Zimbabwe NGO Food Security Network, a collective of local NGOs that monitors food security
countrywide on a regular basis, reported that in some areas where people were selling their grain to the GMB as required by
law, the GMB deliveries into those areas were inadequate. The GMB system was effectively creating a grain deficit in such
areas.(160)

The GMB’s distribution system has also constrained "physical access" for some people, by imposing
a number of restrictions on those seeking to purchase state-controlled grain. These restrictions included requiring proof
of identity or residence, which has reportedly had a disproportionately negative effect on displaced persons and other vulnerable
groups, such as orphans, who do not have the required papers.(161)

The GMB’s dominant role in grain marketing
has had other negative consequences for food security. Although farmers are obliged to sell their surplus grain to the GMB,
the GMB often pays them only months after it takes delivery. This can mean that farmers are not able to afford to buy seeds,
fertilizer and other agricultural supplies (generally know as agricultural ‘inputs’) for the next season.(162)
The FAO noted the impact of this phenomenon on the amount of land planted in 2003/4: "Many of the farmers who sold
maize to the Grain Marketing Board, in May or June 2003, had to wait up to 6-8 months before being paid. This left them with
no working capital for the planting season of October/November, 2003. Largely as a result of this, areas planted to maize
in the major producing areas of Manicaland and Mashonaland are estimated to have dropped by between 9 percent and 37 percent."(163)

The
government, which insists that farmers sell to the GMB but fails to pay them in a timely manner, is undermining sustainable
economic access to food for many small-scale farming households.

The GMB’s involvement in agriculture in Zimbabwe extends to running an agricultural credit scheme that supplies farmers with seeds,
fertilizer and other agricultural inputs. However, as with the GMB’s grain distribution, this scheme has been criticized
by food security monitors for late or inadequate delivery of inputs to farmers(164). Small-scale farmers are the most negatively
affected, as better off farmers can afford to travel to GMB depots to collect inputs. Small-scale farmers usually have to
wait for the GMB to deliver.(165) Late delivery of inputs also has a negative impact on crop production. According to FAO/WFP’s
crop and food assessment in 2002:"The GMB Inputs Distribution Scheme was widely criticized by farmers for not supplying
inputs on time, forcing them to plant without basal fertilizer, with resulting poor root growth and susceptibility to drought."(166)

Lack
of transparency on food stocks Accurate data on food availability and accessibility, appropriately disaggregated to
show possible variation by gender, vulnerable groups and region is vital to addressing the problem of ensuring food security.
However, throughout the current food crisis food monitors and humanitarian organizations have had great difficulty obtaining
information from the government.

For example, several sources in Zimbabwe confirmed to Amnesty International that the UN has "never really known" the level of grain imported
and held by the GMB(167). This lack of transparency has implications for planning and responding to the crisis.

The
Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZIM VAC), which includes representatives of government departments, has noted
discrepancies between official information provided on GMB imports and its own investigations on the ground. In 2002 ZIMVAC
reported that the official data on harvest and imports suggested that there was enough food in the country for the period
April to December 2002, but that the statistics did not accord with the situation at community and household level where shortages
were being experienced.(168) The report called for further investigation into the situation.

6.2 Food aid programmesDuring
the current food crisis international food aid has been a significant source of food for millions of people in Zimbabwe who could not otherwise meet their basic food needs. However, the international food
aid programme has been beset by problems, which have negatively affected both the availability of and access to food during
the crisis.

The government is reported to be extremely suspicious of international donors and non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), and to believe that some feeding schemes are attempts to undermine ZANU-PF by providing support to the political opposition.(169)

The
authorities have placed numerous barriers to humanitarian access. At the height of the food crisis, the process of registering
international humanitarian agencies was beset with difficulties and delays.(170) In 2002 the WFP stated:"the agency
has met with a number of serious challenges since the emergency operations began in February (…) WFP’s ability
to distribute food was limited to start with, especially while the government of Zimbabwe considered the authorization of
several NGO partners. The matter is partly resolved, though WFP would still like to have several additional partners, given
the enormous scope and complexity of the current crisis."(171)

Both local and international NGOs involved in the
distribution of food aid have had difficulty gaining access to certain areas or populations. Food security organizations and
NGOs have reported that, in some cases, meetings with beneficiary communities have to be cleared with the police in advance,
with notice of up to two weeks required before they can visit some areas.(172) In some cases meetings to discuss food distribution
are attended by one or more of: the security services, ruling party politicians, youth "militia" and ZANU-PF supporters. This
is reported to be intimidating and contributes to a climate of fear for both the community and aid workers.(173)

In
some cases local authorities have stopped food aid programmes, while in others war veterans, youth "militia", or other ZANU-PF
supporters, have disrupted humanitarian operations.(174) NGOs and aid workers involved in distributing food aid have been
harassed and intimidated.(175)

Difficulties on the ground have been compounded at times by the inadequate response
of the international community to the food crisis, which threatened the supply of adequate food aid to Zimbabwe. The WFP had
to issue warnings and reduce food rations in 2002 and 2003.(176) The situation was compounded in 2003 by the government’s
delay in making a food aid appeal to international donors.(177) The government and the UN reportedly disagreed about the size
of the harvest. Despite warnings by the WFP that it was running out of stock and that delays in the appeal process could affect
its ability to feed those in need, the food aid appeal was not made until July.(178) This represents a delay in the normal
process for appeals of more than one month.

The international food aid programme was further hampered in 2003 when,
in August, the government issued a policy directive, "Policy Operations of Non-Governmental Organizations in Humanitarian
and Development Assistance in Zimbabwe", which
effectively ended direct involvement by NGOs and put the distribution of food in the hands of local authorities. Donors and
the WFP reacted negatively to this move which they saw as having the potential to allow the international food aid operation
to be used for political ends.(179) Donor commitments to supply food aid were delayed as a result. The WFP made direct representations
to government of Zimbabwe, reportedly making clear that the organization would not allow its food aid to be distributed through
government channels.(180) The government subsequently assured the UN it would not implement its August policy.

While
undertaking research for this report in February 2004, Amnesty International spoke to numerous sources involved in agriculture
and food security in Zimbabwe, at which time all predictions were that the 2004 harvest (due in April/May) would fall well
short of the level needed for domestic food security.(181) During the same research mission Amnesty International was also
told by several sources that the government of Zimbabwe had already decided not make an appeal for international food aid,
regardless of the size of the harvest.(182)

In April 2004 the UN stated:"Based on UN sources (which access [government
department] AREX data), the 2004 harvest is expected to provide yields similar or even lower than those in 2003, which was
well below averages of the previous decade and the level necessary to ensure national food security."(183)

In May
2004 the government stopped a UN Crop and Food Supply Assessment Mission from completing an assessment of the 2004 crop yield,
and then claimed that Zimbabwe had had a "bumper harvest". Speaking on 22 May 2004, President Mugabe asserted: "Our estimates are there and they are showing us we will have
enough food for the country and with a surplus….We are not hungry."(184)

This assertion is widely discredited
by independent food monitors and UN agencies.(185)

In a report issued by FAO in July, following the partial Crop and
Food Supply Assessment Mission in May, FAO stated:"Based on fieldwork, information from many sources, including Government
statistics, rainfall data, satellite imagery, extensive discussions with various industry experts…this year’s
cereal production is estimated at just over 950,000 tonnes… total cereal utilization [in Zimbabwe] should be almost
2.35 million tonnes. This implies a potentially large national cereal import requirement: nearly 1.3 million tonnes."(186)

In
August 2004, the Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET), which operates across Africa, issued a food security emergency
alert for Zimbabwe in which it noted that although maize availability had improved this would "not address the famine
threat that could occur in some parts of the country this year. Special attention is required for the most vulnerable districts
of Manicland and MatebelelandSouthProvinces." (187)

An assessment of food security in rural areas at harvest time, undertaken by the Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment
Committee (ZIM VAC) – which includes representatives of government departments – has stated that about 2.3 million
rural people will need some food assistance in 2004/5.(188) A further 2.5 million people in urban areas may also need food
assistance, based on a ZIM VAC survey undertaken in late 2003.(189)

In August and September independent press reports
claimed that senior provincial officials from Masvingo and Matebeleland North and South provinces, in the southern and western
parts of the country, had approached the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare appealing for humanitarian
assistance, including food aid.(190) According to WFP these provinces are prone to perennial droughts and include areas currently
facing food deficits.(191)

Despite these and many other warnings of growing food insecurity, the Zimbabwe government
has continued to maintain that it does not need international food aid. As a consequence of the widespread controversy over
the size of the 2004 harvest a parliamentary committee has been tasked to investigate the situation. (192) At the time of
writing no results were available.

Since the cessation of general food aid distribution in June 2004, the WFP is reported
to have significantly reduced its operations in Zimbabwe. It continues to operate feeding programmes aimed at approximately half a million vulnerable individuals, including
children. In August 2004, the WFP noted the impact of the cessation of general food aid distribution in Zimbabwe:"The
suspension of general feeding in April by international food agencies, in response to Government's announcement that the country
has enough food from the 2003/04 agricultural season's harvest, has left the majority of highly vulnerable food insecure households
dependent on ineffective coping strategies, with poor prospects for employment income".(193)

A number of local
and international NGOs have continued to implement their own feeding programmes in some areas. However, these programmes are
under constant threat of closure. At the time of writing some NGOs involved in food aid distribution have had their programmes
suspended by government or local authorities pending a decision on their future.(194) Consequently they are unable to distribute
the food aid they have in store, despite mounting evidence of food insecurity.(195)

Humanitarian NGOs are operating
in an environment that is increasingly hostile towards independent civil society organizations. In September 2004, the government
introduced draft legislation governing the operation of NGOs. The Non-governmental Organizations Bill (the NGO Bill) has been
widely criticized, including by Amnesty International. While one of the main concerns with the Bill is its deliberate targeting
of national and international human rights organizations, NGOs involved in food aid distribution and other relief and recovery
programmes in Zimbabwe are also concerned that the legislation, if enacted, will be used to selectively terminate or unduly
interfere with their operations.(196) Under the legislation NGOs must register with a government-appointed "NGO Council",
comprising five representatives of NGOs and nine civil servants holding at least the rank of under-secretary, drawn from various
government ministries. The council will have very broad powers to regulate all activities of NGOs. Amnesty International believes
that the NGO Council - like the Media Information Commission provided for under the 2002 Access to Information and Protection
of Privacy Act, which has overseen the severe repression of independent media in Zimbabwe - will be a biased body, and will
seek to prevent or interfere with the operation of any organization perceived to be critical of the government.

6.3
Discrimination in access to food and food aid

The food embargo in Matebeleland, 1984 "The embargo
on food was total: stores were closed, drought relief food deliveries were stopped, houses were searched and food found was
destroyed."

Breaking the SilenceBuilding True Peace(197) During the nationalist armed struggle of the 1970s the minority government of Ian Smith deliberately withheld food
from areas in an attempt to starve out nationalist combatants. It was a tactic that the newly independent government headed
by Robert Mugabe was to employ again in 1984.(198)

In February 1984 the government deployed the North Korean-trained
Fifth Brigade of the Zimbabwe army in Matebeleland South, and imposed a food embargo, both measures aimed at combating the
purported threat posed by armed anti-government "dissidents".(199) At the time the embargo was imposed the region was suffering
the effects of three years of drought. Food was already in short supply and many were dependent on food aid programmes. The
food embargo prevented any food from entering the area. Drought relief was stopped and shops were closed. The army took control
of the regional National Foods depot to prevent maize meal from being distributed. The Catholic Church was denied permission
to distribute food to hungry parishioners. The food embargo was accompanied by a curfew. Almost all outsiders were prohibited
from entering the curfew area(200).

People were reportedly beaten and tortured for any perceived violation of the food
embargo, including sharing food with neighbours. Houses were ransacked by the army and any food found was destroyed. Speeches
of some Fifth Brigade commanders at rallies stated the desire of the government to starve the people of Matebeleland to death
as punishment for being "dissidents".(201)

The food embargo was eventually lifted on 10 April 1984, reportedly as a
result of pressure from abroad.(202)

Human rights groups, including Amnesty International, and NGOs involved in monitoring
food security in Zimbabwe have repeatedly highlighted discrimination in access to food in Zimbabwe in the context of the current
crisis.

While the majority of reports of discrimination in the current crisis are related to access to government-controlled
GMB grain, discriminatory practices in the registration of beneficiaries for international food aid have also been reported.(203)

Discrimination
is primarily based on political affiliation, with members or suspected members of the MDC denied access to food. In 2002 Amnesty
International received reports that hungry MDC supporters were being forced to "renounce" their MDC membership, and go through
"cleansing rituals" in order to obtain ZANU-PF party cards, and thereby, access to GMB grain.(204)

In 2003 the Zimbabwe
NGO Food Security Network stated:"Procedural barriers and political bias have risen markedly …from 15 per cent
of districts in August 2002 to 33 per cent, 38 per cent and 62 per cent in October [2002], November 2002 and January
2003 respectively, when they were reported as the most common barrier to accessing GMB grains. The major form of this bias
is reported to be the requirement to produce documentation such as [ZANU-PF] party cards or letters from political
structures."

Discrimination within the official GMB system is compounded by the actions of youth "militia", and
war veterans, who are reported to be directly involved in the distribution of government-controlled grain in some areas.(205)
The youth "militia" have also been associated with acts of violence and intimidation against MDC supporters queuing to buy
grain.(206)

Discrimination is also reported in the operation of the government-run "food for work" programmes.(207)
These are government schemes which provide food or cash in return for work on social development projects, such as road construction.
Reports indicate that MDC supporters have been denied access to these programmes(208), and that in some cases MDC supporters
have been denied food even after providing labour under the schemes.(209)

Discrimination in access to international
food aid has also been reported(210). Despite efforts by the international distribution system to eradicate biased practices,
it is almost impossible for the WFP and the NGOs distributing food aid to monitor an entire country to ensure everyone in
need is getting food aid. While most instances of bias have been recorded during the process of registering beneficiaries,
in some cases humanitarian organizations have experienced difficulty gaining access to specific areas of the country.(211)
Access to constituencies where the Member of Parliament is from the MDC has proved difficult. Information gathered by Amnesty
International suggests that humanitarian operations in areas of Manicaland, for example, as well as several other areas of
the country associated with the political opposition, have been subject to access constraints.(212)

Children denied
access to food aid Since 2002 Amnesty International has received numerous reports of discrimination in access to food
aid. In several cases those discriminated against were children.(213)

In January 2002 "KB" attempted to obtain international
food aid for her two-year-old daughter through a child feeding scheme being run by an international NGO. Her child was registered
for the feeding scheme. Representatives of the NGO, meeting with the community, stressed that food aid was to be distributed
to the community regardless of political affiliation. However when the NGO staff left, "KB" and many other parents who were
known to be MDC supporters were told by a local official that they would not receive food for their children, and the children’s
names were removed from the feeding list. Despite appeals from the parents at least 13 children ranging in age from one to
five years old were denied access to international food aid.

While in the majority of reports of discrimination in
access to food and food aid is based on political affiliation, other sectors of the population have also experienced discrimination.

Despite
their vulnerability, farm workers, the majority of whom have lost their jobs, have reportedly been unable to access food aid
and other schemes aimed at assisting those who do not have access to adequate food.(214) Some farm workers have received food
aid through local NGOs but these schemes do not cover all areas. Amnesty International was told by several sources that the
government and some of the new farmers were against food aid being given to the farm workers because this would act as a disincentive
to work for the new farmers.(215) NGOs have reportedly been accused of ‘sabotaging’ the land reform programme
by providing food aid to farm workers(216). In some areas war veterans and youth "militia" reportedly prevent farm workers
from accessing the food aid that is available. One farm worker to whom Amnesty International spoke reported approaching war
veterans who, he said, were the ones who controlled access to food aid supplies, to ask why the farm workers were not getting
food aid. He was told that "the new farmers give you enough".(217) The Zimbabwe NGO Food Security Network has also reported
the selective delivery of GMB grain in some newly resettled areas; newly resettled farmers have access, but farm workers are
excluded.(218)

The constraints which many newly resettled farmers face have meant that thousands have actually required
food aid in 2002 and 2003.(219) However, international donors have been reluctant to distribute food aid to newly resettled
farmers. It has been suggested to Amnesty International that one of the reasons newly resettled farmers did not receive food
aid, despite growing evidence of need, was the feeling amongst some donors that this would legitimize the land reform process
and the accompanying violence.(220) Security in the newly resettled areas is also a problem. A further unfortunate result
of donors’ reluctance to distribute food aid in the newly resettled areas has been that farm workers still living in
these areas are also excluded from food aid.

In early 2004, the WFP began to develop distribution in the newly resettled
areas. However, with the Zimbabwe government’s decision in June 2004 to end most of the international
food aid distribution these programmes will not continue.

Amnesty International’s conclusions on the government’s
response to the food crisisThe government’s response to the increasingly severe food shortages which Zimbabwe has experienced since 2001 has been inadequate. Rather than fulfil its obligations
to ensure the right to food the government has used the food shortages for political purposes and to punish political opponents.

By
preventing or limiting the private import of grain the government has reduced overall availability of food in Zimbabwe. Furthermore, despite its monopoly the GMB cannot adequately distribute grain. This
has further contributed to shortages of food in some areas of the country.

In clear violation of its obligations under
human rights law, the government has used the GMB’s dominant role in grain distribution to discriminate in access to
food based on real or perceived political affiliation, by denying supporters of the political opposition access to food. The
government has also allowed discrimination against farm workers, many of whom are unable to access food having lost their
jobs as a direct result of the way the land reform programme was implemented. The government has failed in its obligations
not to discriminate in access to food and also its obligation to fulfil the right to food for those who, through no fault
of their own, cannot access adequate food. That these violations of farm workers rights may be in an effort to force them
to accept poor working conditions is also a serious human rights concern.(221)

The government’s interference
with the local and international food aid programmes has reduced availability of and access to food in some areas of the country.
Obstructing the distribution of humanitarian assistance violates the right to adequate food of those who are reliant on food
aid.

Finally, in light of the increasing evidence of food insecurity in Zimbabwe in 2004, the government’s rejection of international food aid in 2004 is a violation
of the government’s minimum core obligation to ensure that a significant number of individuals are not deprived of essential
food stuffs. Having rejected international food aid the government cannot claim to have met the obligations of "maximum of
available resources" including those available from the international community.

Amnesty International’s conclusion
on the international response to the food crisisThe international community has provided food aid to Zimbabwe since 2001, and in so doing has alleviated the suffering of millions of people. However,
the international response has at times fallen short of need and has not been entirely free from discrimination.

Where
humanitarian assistance has been denied to newly resettled farmers in need of food aid, the international community has allowed
political motives to interfere with the provision of assistance to those in need. This practice may also have undermined the
efforts of those humanitarian actors who distribute assistance without discrimination, thus further denying the population
of Zimbabwe badly needed help.

7. Food, power and elections: a pattern
of abuseThe use of food as an instrument of political pressure is prohibited in international human rights law, as
is discrimination on the basis of real or perceived political affiliation. Over the past two years Amnesty International and
many other organizations have documented and reported on the use of food to manipulate voters in elections in Zimbabwe. Parliamentary elections are scheduled for 2005; already there are concerns that food
will be used as a political tool during these elections.(222)

During parliamentary, local and by-election campaigns
in 2002, 2003 and 2004 food was manipulated in a variety of ways to force voters to vote for ZANU-PF or prevent them voting
for the MDC(223). A report on the 2002 parliamentary elections by the International Crisis Group stated: "At a time
of severe deprivation the government released supplies of mealie meal… on the day of the election in certain MDC strongholds.
Its intention was that the guaranteed long lines for food would reduce the number of people able to vote." (224)

A
"carrot and stick" approach has been used to manipulate voters. ZANU-PF politicians and candidates, and state-sponsored actors
including youth "militia" and war veterans, have reportedly distributed food free or at highly subsidized prices at political
rallies and polling stations.(225) They have also threatened people’s food access if they do not vote ZANU-PF. In July
2002 the [then] Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister Abednico Ncube reportedly told people at Nkashe Growth Point in Gwanda North
in Matebeleland: "As long as you value the government of the day you will not starve, but we do not want people who
vote for colonialists and then come to us when they want food. You cannot vote for the MDC and expect ZANU-PF to help you."
(226)

Reporting on the September 2002 Rural Development Council elections the Zimbabwe Electoral Supervisory Network
(ZESN) stated that "reports abound of voters who were told they would only receive food if the voted ZANU-PF back into power".

The
manipulation of food by ZANU-PF supporters reportedly resulted in the suspension of food aid distributions by donors in some
areas. On 10
October 2002, the WFP had to temporarily
suspend food aid distribution in Insiza in Matabeleland South following the seizure of three tons of maize from their storage
facility by ZANU-PF supporters who were campaigning ahead of the Insiza by-election on 26 October 2002. According to reports, the food seized, which was the monthly ration for some 6,700
people, was subsequently distributed to ZANU-PF supporters.(227)

Following elections those areas of the country which
elect MDC candidates have regularly been subjected to acts of retribution.(228) Denial of access to food has been one of the
tools of retribution. In 2002 several feed programmes in Binga, an area where the MDC have repeatedly been successful in elections,
were suspended. In May war veterans in Binga prevented the distribution of food aid to some 40,000 school children, reportedly
to punish their parents for supporting the MDC.(229) The Binga feeding scheme operated by the Catholic Commission for Justice
and Peace (CCJP) was stopped for several weeks. In October of the same year Save the Children UK and Oxfam Great Britain were
also forced to stop feeding schemes in Binga, reportedly because of the areas’ support for the MDC in the Rural District
Council elections the previous month.(230)

The "carrot and stick" approach was also evident at the May 2004 by-election
in Lupane in Matebeleland North, where the MDC incumbent had died. Maize meal was reportedly brought into the constituency
ahead of the election and sold at about 10 per cent of the normal retail price. At the same time communities in the area were
allegedly threatened by ZANU-PF officials that if they did not vote ZANU-PF they would not receive food.(231) ZANU-PF won
the by-election.

7.1 March 2005: The risk of further violationsParliamentary elections are scheduled for
March 2005. Zimbabwe’s main harvest season is April/May, and March is described
as the height of the "hungry" season in Zimbabwe (i.e.
when the previous harvest has run out and before a new harvest is due). Civil society and human rights groups believe that
the timing of the elections will allow for manipulation of government-controlled food.

Although at the time of writing
millions of Zimbabweans are unable to gain access to adequate food, the government of Zimbabwe is denying their suffering. Claiming a "bumper" harvest in 2004, the government has
told the UN and international donors that Zimbabwe no longer needs food aid. As noted earlier these assertions are widely disputed.(232) The government’s claims
are believed to be part of a strategy to manipulate people through fear of hunger ahead of the March 2005 elections.(233)

When
food harvested in mid 2004 runs out, many households will be left dependent on grain sold by the GMB. There are conflicting
reports about the stocks held by the GMB. Some reports suggest that the GMB will not have sufficient stock to meet demands
for grain purchase.(234) On the other hand reports that GMB grain silos are filling up with imported maize has further fuelled
concern that the government intends to use food to manipulate voters ahead of the March elections.(235) In a television interview
on 22 May 2004, President Mugabe denied that Zimbabwe is importing grain.(236) In response to the question "Are you going
to be buying food from outside?" he replied, "Definitely no, never. Not this year."

Given the GMB’s history of
inept and discriminatory distribution of the grain it controls, and the pattern of abuse of access to food at times of elections
over the past two years, Amnesty International is gravely concerned about potential further violations of the rights to adequate
food and freedom from hunger around the 2005 elections. Amnesty International is further concerned that with the closure of
most humanitarian operations and restrictions being placed on NGOs as a consequence of the NGO legislation, such violations
will escalate and go largely unreported.

In the context of the manipulation of food around elections, an issue of concern
is that some of Zimbabwe’s most chronically food insecurity areas – particularly
in the south and east of the country – are also areas where the political opposition is most popular. People in these
areas are particularly vulnerable to manipulation of food.

8. RecommendationsAmnesty International is concerned
by all the violations of human rights discussed in the preceding sections. The Government of Zimbabwe has an obligation to
ensure access to adequate food for all persons under its jurisdiction. It also has an obligation to ensure that those whose
rights are violated have access to legal remedies or redress.

The following recommendations include actions which should
be taken promptly, particularly to address the increasing food insecurity being experienced in many parts of the country,
and discrimination in access to food and food aid. Other recommendations should be accomplished through progressive but well-planned
and concrete steps, including the development of human rights-based policies and legislation.

8.1 Recommendations
to the Government of Zimbabwe:

The Government of Zimbabwe should: 1. Take immediate
targeted steps to address the current food shortages, including the following:

Take urgent action to address food
insecurity already identified in Zimbabwe. This action must be consistent with Zimbabwe’s obligations to mobilize all resources (from all sources including private, international, and national) available
to it in order to ensure freedom from hunger.

Guarantee the free and unimpeded passage
of aid provided by impartial humanitarian organizations and UN agencies such as the World Food Programme. Unimpeded access
includes freedom to meet with the community without interference and without the presence of any security forces, youth "militia"
or any other "threatening" presence.

Ensure immediate access to food for
the most vulnerable, including children, those suffering form HIV/AIDS, farm workers and internally displaced persons. The
government should accept internationally-agreed criteria and methodologies for assessing vulnerability.

In monitoring availability of and access
to food, special attention should be paid to those areas, such as in the south and east of the country, which experience chronic
food deficits. Specific plans should be made to ensure the right to food is upheld for everyone in these areas.

2. Take immediate,
concrete and targeted steps to end discrimination in access to food and/or food aid, specifically the following:

Ensure that food aid is distributed
to all on the basis of need, irrespective of real or perceived political affiliation, or any other factor or criteria.

Ensure that an independent and impartial
review of the operations of the GMB and its role in the trade, marketing and distribution of grain in Zimbabwe is carried out. This review, which should seek the views of all stakeholders, should make recommendations for the
future operation of the GMB and grain marketing in Zimbabwe which are consistent
with Zimbabwe’s international human rights obligations.

Ensure that food is distributed by
impartial agencies. Youth "militia" and war veterans should not be involved in the distribution of food or food aid; nor should
police, army or any other state security agents.

Repeal or amend all legislation which
compromises the delivery of humanitarian assistance, including legislation governing the operation of non-governmental organizations
and private voluntary organizations, which is incompatible with regional and international standards.

Ensure that farm workers have equal
access to the land reform process in order to give them an equal opportunity to provide for their own food security.

3. Take immediate,
concrete and targeted steps to mitigate the negative impacts of the implementation of the fast-track land reform programme
on human rights, including the right to food.

Under
international human rights standards, governments are under an obligation to develop and reform agrarian systems in such a
way as to achieve the most efficient and equitable utilization of natural resources.(237) Land distribution may therefore
be one of a range of legitimate means by which governments can realize the "fundamental right of everyone to be free from
hunger".(238) However, any land reform policy should be carried out in accordance with the law and with human rights standards.
States should be carried out in accordance with the law, and governments should use all available resources, including those
available from the international community, to ensure that, where feasible, those affected receive adequate compensation.

Amongst the
measure which the government should undertake are: a) Consider the establishment of an independent and broad-based commission,
which should include representatives of all stakeholders, to review the fast-track and reform programme from a human rights
perspective and to make recommendations based on securing the human rights of all. This commission should be chaired by an
independent and impartial international expert. b) Resolve the issues of land ownership, compensation and security of
tenure. In resolving these complex problems the government should seek expert advice from UN specialist bodies.

Create an accurate land register, which
reflects the situation at the present time including cases of contested ownership. This register should be made public.

With special reference to the urgency
of ensuring food security the government of Zimbabwe should ensure that
all those who have been resettled under the fast-track land reform programme are afforded a sufficient degree of legal security
of tenure, which will enable them to invest in agricultural production.

Farm workers who have been displaced
or evicted as a result of land invasions or implementation of the fast-track land reform programme should be entitled to a
remedy, including restitution and/or compensation. The situation of farm workers remaining in their homes on farms affected
by the land invasions or fast-track land reform programme should be resolved in consultation with farm workers and their representatives
(see (c) below).

Place a moratorium on all evictions
until such time as a comprehensive human-rights-based land resettlement policy has been adopted.

Give instructions to all relevant authorities
that evictions may only be carried out in conformity with human rights standards, and should follow: "(a) an opportunity for
genuine consultation with those affected; (b) adequate and reasonable notice for all affected persons prior to the scheduled
date of eviction; (c) information on the proposed evictions, … (e) all persons carrying out the eviction to be properly
identified; … (g) provision of legal remedies; and (h) provision, where possible, of legal aid to persons who are in
need of it to seek redress from the courts."(239)

Provide immediate assistance to victims
of forced evictions who remain without access to adequate food and shelter.

Former commercial farmers evicted without
due process should be entitled to a remedy, including access to justice and adequate reparation. The Government of Zimbabwe
should seek the assistance of the international community to resolve this issue.

c) As a matter
of urgency, develop and implement a plan aimed at mitigating the negative impact of the land reform programme on the rights
of farm workers. This should be done in full consultation with farm workers and should be specific about the needs of vulnerable
groups including those suffering HIV/AIDS and orphans/orphan-headed households. Those farm workers who have lost livelihoods
as a result of the land invasions or fast-track land reform programme should be entitled to a remedy, including compensation
and/or restitution.d) Seek technical and financial assistance from the international community in order to ensure sustainable
food production and therefore greater food security. 3. Take steps to ensure the progressive full realization of the right
to food in accordance with international standards to which Zimbabwe is a state party. Specifically:

Ensure that the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is incorporated into the domestic law of Zimbabwe through an appropriate Act of Parliament.

Develop a national strategy to ensure
food and nutrition security for all, based on the guidance provided in the General Comment of the Committee on ESCR on the
right food. The strategy should address the particular needs of women, farm workers and vulnerable or marginalized social
groups. The formulation and implementation of the strategy should comply with the principles of accountability, transparency,
people's participation, decentralization, legislative capacity and the independence of the judiciary.(240)

Ensure that the national budget reflects
the government’s obligation under Article 2.1 of the ICESCR, to use the maximum of available resources to achieve Economic,
Social and Cultural rights in Zimbabwe.

8.2 Recommendations
to the international community

Provision of humanitarian aid should
be guided at all times by human rights obligations. Essential aid in times of food crisis should not be used by any government
as a bargaining tool. No-one in need should be denied aid. This obligation has been clarified by the UN Commission on Human
Rights which recently stated: "food should not be used as an instrument of political or economic pressure". The commission
reaffirmed the importance of international cooperation and solidarity, as well as the necessity of "refraining from unilateral
measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations which endanger food security".(241)

Continue to urge the Zimbabwe government to ensure free access of humanitarian agencies throughout the country, in particular to ensure that humanitarian
assistance, especially food aid, is distributed without discrimination of any kind, and that the most vulnerable are prioritized
in its distribution.

In line with human rights obligations
provide the necessary assistance in order to ensure sustainable food production and therefore greater food security in Zimbabwe. The provision of such assistance should cover communal and both old and newly-resettled areas.(242) Such assistance
should be provided in a manner that does not prejudice claims on ownership of land, nor affect the legitimacy of claims resulting
from either land redistribution, or occupation.

Reassess the impact of development assistance
policies regarding land reform in Zimbabwe on food security in the country with a view to respecting the right to adequate
food of the Zimbabwean population.

9.
Acronyms

ACHPR

African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights

AIPPA

Access
to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (2002)

AREX

Agricultural
Research and Extension Services

BSA Co.

British
South Africa Company

CCJP

Catholic
Commission for Justice and Peace

CESCR

UN
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

CFU

Commercial
Farmers Union

DFID

Department
for International Development (UK)

ESAP

Economic
Structural Adjustment Programme

EU

European
Union

FAO

Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FEWS NET

Famine
Early Warning Systems Network

FIAN

Foodfirst
Information and Action Network

GMB

Grain
Marketing Board

ICCPR

International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

ICESCR

International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

MDC

Movement
for Democratic Change

NGO

Non-governmental
Organization

ODA

Overseas
Development Administration (UK)

RF

Rhodesian
Front

UDI

Unilateral
Declaration of Independence (of 1965)

UK

United Kingdom

UN

United
Nations

UNDP

United
Nations Development Programme

WFP

World
Food Programme

ZANU

Zimbabwe
African National Union

ZANU-PF

Zimbabwe
African National Union – Patriotic Front

ZAPU

Zimbabwe
African People’s Union

ZESN

Zimbabwe
Electoral Supervisory Network

ZIMVAC

Zimbabwe
Vulnerability Assessment Committee

Appendix
I : General Comment 12, Right to adequate food (Art. 11, Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights)

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 12, Right to adequate food,
(Twentieth session, 1999), U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1999/5 (1999), reprinted in Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations
Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 at 62 (2003).

GENERAL
COMMENT No. 12 (1999) The right to adequate food, (Art. 11)

Introduction and basic premises 1. The human
right to adequate food is recognized in several instruments under international law. The International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights deals more comprehensively than any other instrument with this right. Pursuant to article 11.1
of the Covenant, States parties recognize "the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family,
including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions", while pursuant to
article 11.2 they recognize that more immediate and urgent steps may be needed to ensure "the fundamental right to freedom
from hunger and malnutrition". The human right to adequate food is of crucial importance for the enjoyment of all rights.
It applies to everyone; thus the reference in Article 11.1 to "himself and his family" does not imply any limitation upon
the applicability of this right to individuals or to female-headed households.

2. The Committee has accumulated significant
information pertaining to the right to adequate food through examination of State parties' reports over the years since 1979.
The Committee has noted that while reporting guidelines are available relating to the right to adequate food, only few States
parties have provided information sufficient and precise enough to enable the Committee to determine the prevailing situation
in the countries concerned with respect to this right and to identify the obstacles to its realization. This General Comment
aims to identify some of the principal issues which the Committee considers to be important in relation to the right to adequate
food. Its preparation was triggered by the request of Member States during the 1996 World Food Summit, for a better definition
of the rights relating to food in article 11 of the Covenant, and by a special request to the Committee to give particular
attention to the Summit Plan of Action in monitoring the implementation of the specific measures provided for in article 11
of the Covenant.

3. In response to these requests, the Committee reviewed the relevant reports and documentation of
the Commission on Human Rights and of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities on the
right to adequate food as a human right; devoted a day of general discussion to this issue at its seventeenth session in 1997,
taking into consideration the draft international code of conduct on the human right to adequate food prepared by international
non-governmental organizations; participated in two expert consultations on the right to adequate food as a human right organized
by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), in Geneva in December 1997, and in Rome in
November 1998 co-hosted by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and noted their final reports.
In April 1999 the Committee participated in a symposium on "The substance and politics of a human rights approach to food
and nutrition policies and programmes", organized by the Administrative Committee on Co-ordination/Sub-Committee on Nutrition
of the United Nations at its twenty-sixth session in Geneva and hosted by OHCHR.

4. The Committee affirms that the right to adequate food is indivisibly linked to the
inherent dignity of the human person and is indispensable for the fulfilment of other human rights enshrined in the International
Bill of Human Rights. It is also inseparable from social justice, requiring the adoption of appropriate economic, environmental
and social policies, at both the national and international levels, oriented to the eradication of poverty and the fulfilment
of all human rights for all.

5. Despite the fact that the international community has frequently reaffirmed the importance
of full respect for the right to adequate food, a disturbing gap still exists between the standards set in article 11 of the
Covenant and the situation prevailing in many parts of the world. More than 840 million people throughout the world, most
of them in developing countries, are chronically hungry; millions of people are suffering from famine as the result of natural
disasters, the increasing incidence of civil strife and wars in some regions and the use of food as a political weapon. The
Committee observes that while the problems of hunger and malnutrition are often particularly acute in developing countries,
malnutrition, under-nutrition and other problems which relate to the right to adequate food and the right to freedom from
hunger, also exist in some of the most economically developed countries. Fundamentally, the roots of the problem of hunger
and malnutrition are not lack of food but lack of access to available food, inter alia because of poverty, by large
segments of the world's population

Normative content of article 11, paragraphs 1 and 2 6. The right to adequate
food is realized when every man, woman and child, alone or in community with others, has physical and economic access at all
times to adequate food or means for its procurement. The right to adequate food shall therefore not be interpreted in a narrow
or restrictive sense which equates it with a minimum package of calories, proteins and other specific nutrients. The right
to adequate food will have to be realized progressively. However, States have a core obligation to take the necessary action
to mitigate and alleviate hunger as provided for in paragraph 2 of article 11, even in times of natural or other disasters.

Adequacy
and sustainability of food availability and access 7. The concept of adequacy is particularly significant in relation
to the right to food since it serves to underline a number of factors which must be taken into account in determining whether
particular foods or diets that are accessible can be considered the most appropriate under given circumstances for the purposes
of article 11 of the Covenant. The notion of sustainability is intrinsically linked to the notion of adequate food or food
security, implying food being accessible for both present and future generations. The precise meaning of "adequacy" is to
a large extent determined by prevailing social, economic, cultural, climatic, ecological and other conditions, while "sustainability"
incorporates the notion of long-term availability and accessibility.

8. The Committee considers that the core content
of the right to adequate food implies: The availability of food in a quantity and quality sufficient to satisfy the dietary
needs of individuals, free from adverse substances, and acceptable within a given culture; The accessibility of such food
in ways that are sustainable and that do not interfere with the enjoyment of other human rights.

9. Dietary needs implies
that the diet as a whole contains a mix of nutrients for physical and mental growth, development and maintenance, and physical
activity that are in compliance with human physiological needs at all stages throughout the life cycle and according to gender
and occupation. Measures may therefore need to be taken to maintain, adapt or strengthen dietary diversity and appropriate
consumption and feeding patterns, including breast-feeding, while ensuring that changes in availability and access to food
supply as a minimum do not negatively affect dietary composition and intake.

10. Free from adverse substances sets
requirements for food safety and for a range of protective measures by both public and private means to prevent contamination
of foodstuffs through adulteration and/or through bad environmental hygiene or inappropriate handling at different stages
throughout the food chain; care must also be taken to identify and avoid or destroy naturally occurring toxins.

11.
Cultural or consumer acceptability implies the need also to take into account, as far as possible, perceived non nutrient-based
values attached to food and food consumption and informed consumer concerns regarding the nature of accessible food supplies.

12.
Availability refers to the possibilities either for feeding oneself directly from productive land or other natural resources,
or for well functioning distribution, processing and market systems that can move food from the site of production to where
it is needed in accordance with demand.

13. Accessibility encompasses both economic and physical accessibility: Economic
accessibility implies that personal or household financial costs associated with the acquisition of food for an adequate diet
should be at a level such that the attainment and satisfaction of other basic needs are not threatened or compromised. Economic
accessibility applies to any acquisition pattern or entitlement through which people procure their food and is a measure of
the extent to which it is satisfactory for the enjoyment of the right to adequate food. Socially vulnerable groups such as
landless persons and other particularly impoverished segments of the population may need attention through special programmes.

Physical
accessibility implies that adequate food must be accessible to everyone, including physically vulnerable individuals, such
as infants and young children, elderly people, the physically disabled, the terminally ill and persons with persistent medical
problems, including the mentally ill. Victims of natural disasters, people living in disaster-prone areas and other specially
disadvantaged groups may need special attention and sometimes priority consideration with respect to accessibility of food.
A particular vulnerability is that of many indigenous population groups whose access to their ancestral lands may be threatened.

Obligations
and violations 14. The nature of the legal obligations of States parties are set out in article 2 of the Covenant
and has been dealt with in the Committee's General Comment No. 3 (1990). The principal obligation is to take steps to achieve
progressively the full realization of the right to adequate food. This imposes an obligation to move as expeditiously as possible
towards that goal. Every State is obliged to ensure for everyone under its jurisdiction access to the minimum essential food
which is sufficient, nutritionally adequate and safe, to ensure their freedom from hunger.

15. The right to adequate
food, like any other human right, imposes three types or levels of obligations on States parties: the obligations to respect,
to protect and to fulfil. In turn, the obligation to fulfil incorporates both an obligation to facilitate and an obligation
to provide.[1] The obligation to respect existing access to adequate food requires States parties not to take any measures
that result in preventing such access. The obligation to protect requires measures by the State to ensure that enterprises
or individuals do not deprive individuals of their access to adequate food. The obligation to fulfil (facilitate) means the
State must pro-actively engage in activities intended to strengthen people's access to and utilization of resources and means
to ensure their livelihood, including food security. Finally, whenever an individual or group is unable, for reasons beyond
their control, to enjoy the right to adequate food by the means at their disposal, States have the obligation to fulfil (provide)
that right directly. This obligation also applies for persons who are victims of natural or other disasters.

16. Some
measures at these different levels of obligations of States parties are of a more immediate nature, while other measures are
more of a long-term character, to achieve progressively the full realization of the right to food.

17. Violations of
the Covenant occur when a State fails to ensure the satisfaction of, at the very least, the minimum essential level required
to be free from hunger. In determining which actions or omissions amount to a violation of the right to food, it is important
to distinguish the inability from the unwillingness of a State party to comply. Should a State party argue that resource constraints
make it impossible to provide access to food for those who are unable by themselves to secure such access, the State has to
demonstrate that every effort has been made to use all the resources at its disposal in an effort to satisfy, as a matter
of priority, those minimum obligations. This follows from Article 2.1 of the Covenant, which obliges a State party to take
the necessary steps to the maximum of its available resources, as previously pointed out by the Committee in its General Comment
No. 3, paragraph 10. A State claiming that it is unable to carry out its obligation for reasons beyond its control therefore
has the burden of proving that this is the case and that it has unsuccessfully sought to obtain international support to ensure
the availability and accessibility of the necessary food.

18. Furthermore, any discrimination in access to food, as
well as to means and entitlements for its procurement, on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language, age, religion, political
or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status with the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing
the equal enjoyment or exercise of economic, social and cultural rights constitutes a violation of the Covenant.

19.
Violations of the right to food can occur through the direct action of States or other entities insufficiently regulated by
States. These include: the formal repeal or suspension of legislation necessary for the continued enjoyment of the right to
food; denial of access to food to particular individuals or groups, whether the discrimination is based on legislation or
is pro-active; the prevention of access to humanitarian food aid in internal conflicts or other emergency situations; adoption
of legislation or policies which are manifestly incompatible with pre-existing legal obligations relating to the right to
food; and failure to regulate activities of individuals or groups so as to prevent them from violating the right to food of
others, or the failure of a State to take into account its international legal obligations regarding the right to food when
entering into agreements with other States or with international organizations.

20. While only States are parties to
the Covenant and are thus ultimately accountable for compliance with it, all members of society - individuals, families, local
communities, non-governmental organizations, civil society organizations, as well as the private business sector - have responsibilities
in the realization of the right to adequate food. The State should provide an environment that facilitates implementation
of these responsibilities. The private business sector – national and transnational - should pursue its activities within
the framework of a code of conduct conducive to respect of the right to adequate food, agreed upon jointly with the Government
and civil society.

Implementation at the national level 21. The most appropriate ways and means of implementing
the right to adequate food will inevitably vary significantly from one State party to another. Every State will have a margin
of discretion in choosing its own approaches, but the Covenant clearly requires that each State party take whatever steps
are necessary to ensure that everyone is free from hunger and as soon as possible can enjoy the right to adequate food. This
will require the adoption of a national strategy to ensure food and nutrition security for all, based on human rights principles
that define the objectives, and the formulation of policies and corresponding benchmarks. It should also identify the resources
available to meet the objectives and the most cost-effective way of using them.

22. The strategy should be based on
a systematic identification of policy measures and activities relevant to the situation and context, as derived from the normative
content of the right to adequate food and spelled out in relation to the levels and nature of State parties' obligations referred
to in paragraph 15 of the present general comment. This will facilitate coordination between ministries and regional and local
authorities and ensure that related policies and administrative decisions are in compliance with the obligations under article
11 of the Covenant.

23. The formulation and implementation of national strategies for the right to food requires full
compliance with the principles of accountability, transparency, people's participation, decentralization, legislative capacity
and the independence of the judiciary. Good governance is essential to the realization of all human rights, including the
elimination of poverty and ensuring a satisfactory livelihood for all.

24. Appropriate institutional mechanisms should
be devised to secure a representative process towards the formulation of a strategy, drawing on all available domestic expertise
relevant to food and nutrition. The strategy should set out the responsibilities and time-frame for the implementation of
the necessary measures.

25. The strategy should address critical issues and measures in regard to all aspects of the
food system, including the production, processing, distribution, marketing and consumption of safe food, as well as parallel
measures in the fields of health, education, employment and social security. Care should be taken to ensure the most sustainable
management and use of natural and other resources for food at the national, regional, local and household levels.

26.
The strategy should give particular attention to the need to prevent discrimination in access to food or resources for food.
This should include: guarantees of full and equal access to economic resources, particularly for women, including the right
to inheritance and the ownership of land and other property, credit, natural resources and appropriate technology; measures
to respect and protect self-employment and work which provides a remuneration ensuring a decent living for wage earners and
their families (as stipulated in article 7 (a) (ii) of the Covenant); maintaining registries on rights in land (including
forests).

27. As part of their obligations to protect people's resource base for food, States parties should take appropriate
steps to ensure that activities of the private business sector and civil society are in conformity with the right to food.

28.
Even where a State faces severe resource constraints, whether caused by a process of economic adjustment, economic recession,
climatic conditions or other factors, measures should be undertaken to ensure that the right to adequate food is especially
fulfilled for vulnerable population groups and individuals. Benchmarks and framework legislation 29. In implementing
the country-specific strategies referred to above, States should set verifiable benchmarks for subsequent national and international
monitoring. In this connection, States should consider the adoption of a framework law as a major instrument in the implementation
of the national strategy concerning the right to food. The framework law should include provisions on its purpose; the targets
or goals to be achieved and the time-frame to be set for the achievement of those targets; the means by which the purpose
could be achieved described in broad terms, in particular the intended collaboration with civil society and the private sector
and with international organizations; institutional responsibility for the process; and the national mechanisms for its monitoring,
as well as possible recourse procedures. In developing the benchmarks and framework legislation, States parties should actively
involve civil society organizations.

30. Appropriate United Nations programmes and agencies should assist, upon request,
in drafting the framework legislation and in reviewing the sectoral legislation. FAO, for example, has considerable expertise
and accumulated knowledge concerning legislation in the field of food and agriculture. The United Nations Children's Fund
(UNICEF) has equivalent expertise concerning legislation with regard to the right to adequate food for infants and young children
through maternal and child protection including legislation to enable breast-feeding, and with regard to the regulation of
marketing of breast milk substitutes.

Monitoring 31. States parties shall develop and maintain mechanisms
to monitor progress towards the realization of the right to adequate food for all, to identify the factors and difficulties
affecting the degree of implementation of their obligations, and to facilitate the adoption of corrective legislation and
administrative measures, including measures to implement their obligations under articles 2.1 and 23 of the Covenant.

Remedies
and accountability 32. Any person or group who is a victim of a violation of the right to adequate food should have
access to effective judicial or other appropriate remedies at both national and international levels. All victims of such
violations are entitled to adequate reparation, which may take the form of restitution, compensation, satisfaction or guarantees
of non-repetition. National Ombudsmen and human rights commissions should address violations of the right to food.

33.
The incorporation in the domestic legal order of international instruments recognizing the right to food, or recognition of
their applicability, can significantly enhance the scope and effectiveness of remedial measures and should be encouraged in
all cases. Courts would then be empowered to adjudicate violations of the core content of the right to food by direct reference
to obligations under the Covenant.

34. Judges and other members of the legal profession are invited to pay greater
attention to violations of the right to food in the exercise of their functions.

35. States parties should respect
and protect the work of human rights advocates and other members of civil society who assist vulnerable groups in the realization
of their right to adequate food.

International obligations States parties 36. In the spirit of article
56 of the Charter of the United Nations, the specific provisions contained in articles 11, 2.1, and 23 of the Covenant and
the Rome Declaration of the World Food Summit, States parties should recognize the essential role of international cooperation
and comply with their commitment to take joint and separate action to achieve the full realization of the right to adequate
food. In implementing this commitment, States parties should take steps to respect the enjoyment of the right to food in other
countries, to protect that right, to facilitate access to food and to provide the necessary aid when required. States parties
should, in international agreements whenever relevant, ensure that the right to adequate food is given due attention and consider
the development of further international legal instruments to that end.

37. States parties should refrain at all times
from food embargoes or similar measures which endanger conditions for food production and access to food in other countries.
Food should never be used as an instrument of political and economic pressure. In this regard, the Committee recalls its position,
stated in its General Comment No. 8, on the relationship between economic sanctions and respect for economic, social and cultural
rights.

States and international organizations 38. States have a joint and individual responsibility, in accordance
with the Charter of the United Nations, to cooperate in providing disaster relief and humanitarian assistance in times of
emergency, including assistance to refugees and internally displaced persons. Each State should contribute to this task in
accordance with its ability. The role of the World Food Programme (WFP) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR), and increasingly that of UNICEF and FAO is of particular importance in this respect and should be strengthened.
Priority in food aid should be given to the most vulnerable populations.

39. Food aid should, as far as possible, be
provided in ways which do not adversely affect local producers and local markets, and should be organized in ways that facilitate
the return to food self-reliance of the beneficiaries. Such aid should be based on the needs of the intended beneficiaries.
Products included in international food trade or aid programmes must be safe and culturally acceptable to the recipient population.

The
United Nations and other international organizations 40. The role of the United Nations agencies, including through the
United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) at the country level, in promoting the realization of the right to
food is of special importance. Coordinated efforts for the realization of the right to food should be maintained to enhance
coherence and interaction among all the actors concerned, including the various components of civil society. The food organizations,
FAO, WFP and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) in conjunction with the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), UNICEF, the World Bank and the regional development banks, should cooperate more effectively, building on
their respective expertise, on the implementation of the right to food at the national level, with due respect to their individual
mandates.

41. The international financial institutions, notably the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World
Bank, should pay greater attention to the protection of the right to food in their lending policies and credit agreements
and in international measures to deal with the debt crisis. Care should be taken, in line with the Committee's General Comment
No. 2, paragraph 9, in any structural adjustment programme to ensure that the right to food is protected.

Notes

[1] Originally three levels of obligations were proposed: to respect, protect and assist/fulfil. (See Right to
adequate food as a human right, Study Series No. 1, New York,
1989 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.89.XIV.2).) The intermediate level of "to facilitate" has been proposed as a
Committee category, but the Committee decided to maintain the three levels of obligation.

(23) At independence ZANU won
parliamentary elections. Conflict between the ZANU and ZAPU during the 1980s was resolved by the signing of the 1987 Unity
Accord, which saw the two parties merge (although ZAPU was effectively subsumed into ZANU).

(25) Commercial Farmers’ Union, "The
current status of commercial agriculture in Zimbabwe", February 2003

(26) Central Statistical Office, Zimbabwe.

(27) The history of land acquisition and distribution in Zimbabwe is described in the following sections of this report.

(28) World Bank,
"Zimbabwe Poverty Profile", 2004. According to the poverty profile "Communal
farming areas have 76 percent of the poor and 82 percent of the very poor in Zimbabwe"; Central Statistical Office, Zimbabwe,
"Poverty in Zimbabwe", June 1998; See also: Bird K. and Shepherd A., "Chronic poverty in semi-arid Zimbabwe, CPRC Working
Paper No 18", June 2003, Chronic Poverty Research Centre, ISBN Number: 1-904049-17-6.

(30) The term "underutilized" was used in the Lancaster House Agreement and
referred to land which was not being used at all or used at low intensity relative to its potential. In practice it has proved
difficult to define in Zimbabwe.

(39) Letter from Clare Short to Hon. Kumbirai Kangai, MP, Minister of Agriculture and Land,
5 November 1997, reproduced in full in New African, February 2003.

(40)
On 22 May 2004 President Mugabe gave a rare international television interview to Sky News in which he referred to the breakdown
in relations between the UK and Zimbabwe, referring back to the Short letter and its impact "Their [Labour’s] philosophy
was…we only recognize poverty alleviation as the policy that should be applied to Zimbabwe…and don’t talk
to us about colonial responsibilities, said Clare Short. Ireland was once a colony and so on.."

(41) Amnesty International discussions with land reform expert,
various dates, 2004

(42) Ibid

(43) Ibid

(44) Ibid

(45) Ibid

(46) Foreign and Commonwealth
Office, UK, "Zimbabwe: UK Approach to Land Reform". This FOC document also notes that "The UK remains willing to support a land reform programme
that is carried out in accordance with the principles agreed by donors and the Zimbabwe Government in 1998."

(51) Amnesty
International interviews with land and agriculture experts, Zimbabwe, February 2004.

(52) Ibid.

(53) Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, "Politically motivated
violence in Zimbabwe 2000-2001: A report on the campaign of political repression conducted by the Zimbabwean Government under
the guise of carrying out land reform", August 2001.

(54) The negative impact of such amnesties on the rule of law
in Zimbabwe was described by Amnesty International in "Zimbabwe: The toll of impunity", June 2002, AI Index: AFR 46/034/2002.

(55) Constitutional
Amendment Number 16. This amendment provides that the "former colonial power" is responsible for paying compensation for agricultural
land compulsorily acquired for resettlement.

(57) Presidential Land Review Committee, "Report of
the Presidential Land Review Committee on the implementation of the fast-track land reform programme 2000- 2002, 2003; BBC
News, "Zimbabwe admits land chaos", 17 October 2003; The Zimbabwe Independent, "4 years on, land reform still marred by chaos",
9 January 2004.

(58) Presidential Land Review Committee, "Report of the Presidential Land Review Committee on the implementation
of the fast-track land reform programme 2000- 2002", 2003, p. 17.

(59) This was made clear, for example, at the Abuja meeting of Commonwealth Foreign Ministers in September 2001.

(60) Amnesty International interview
with land expert, Zimbabwe, June 2004.

(61) Amnesty International interviews with
agriculture experts, Zimbabwe, February 2004.

(63) Presidential
Land Review Committee, "Report of the Presidential Land Review Committee on the implementation of the fast-track land reform
programme 2000- 2002", 2003, p. 25.

(64) Ibid.

(65) Presidential Land Review Committee, "Report of the Presidential
Land Review Committee on the implementation of the fast-track land reform programme 2000- 2002", 2003, p. 31.

(66)
The Presidential Land Review Committee noted that communal areas remained congested for a number of reasons, including because
households allocated land chose to split the household and run both their communal and resettlement holdings, and because
a proportion of the land was allocated to urban dwellers, and because land that was vacated in the communal areas was in some
cases reallocated to those displaced by the land reform programmes.

(67) International Federation of Red Cross and
Red Crescent Societies Press Release: "Red Cross appeals to international community not to forget Zimbabwe", 10 March 2000.

(68) UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, Concluding observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Zimbabwe. 20/05/97, E/C.12/1/Add.12., para. 15.

(69) UN Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 12, The Right to Adequate Food, E/C.12/1999/5, para 6.

(70) UN Committee
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 12, The Right to Adequate Food, E/C.12/1999/5, para 28.

(71)
General Comment No. 12, supra, at para 14.

(72) UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment
No. 3, The nature of States parties obligations, 14/12/90, at para 9.

(73) General Comment No. 12, at para 17

(74)
General Comment No. 12, supra, at para 8.

(75) Ibid, at para 12

(76) Ibid, at para 13

(77) Ibid, at para
28.

(78) African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, The Social and Economic RightsActionCenter for Economic and Social Rights v. Nigeria, Communication No. 155/96, October 2001.

(88) This view is supported by the Food and Agriculture Organization, The right to adequate food in
emergencies, FAO Legislative Study 77 Rome, 2003, page 35, and the UN Committee on ESCR, General Comment No. 12 (Right to
Adequate Food), E/C.12/1999/5, para 19.

(90) Since 1997 FIAN and La Vía Campesina have been
leading the Global Campaign for Agrarian Reform. The Global Campaign serves as a platform for promoting effective agrarian
reform in countries with highly unequal patterns of land ownership. See: www.fian.org;

(95) Amnesty International has publicly
commented on the intimidation of judges in Zimbabwe, including in "Zimbabwe: Rights Under Siege", May 2003, AI Index: AFR 46/012/2003; Amnesty International, "Zimbabwe: The toll of impunity", June 2002, AI Index: AFR 46/034/2002.

(96) Under
Section 5 of the original 1992 Land Acquisition Act the owner of the land and anyone having legal rights in respect of the
land must be personally served with a preliminary acquisition order. Section 7 of the original Act provided that the Administrative Court must review any acquisition order, if that order was challenged. Under Section
8 of the original Act, the acquiring authority gives notice of the legal ownership. Thereafter the acquiring authority could
issue an eviction notice in writing to anyone occupying the land that, at the date of the preliminary notice, had a right
to occupy, after which anyone so notified has 90 days to vacate the farm. Several of these provisions have since been subject
to amendment.

(97) Statutory Instrument 338 of 2001. The amendment was made under the Presidential Powers (Temporary
Measures) Act which allows the President to introduce temporary legislation valid for six months. The amendment was subsequently
confirmed by the Parliament of Zimbabwe in May 2002.

(98) Commercial Farmers’ Union, "Implications of amendments
to the Land Acquisition Act Statutory Instrument 338 of 2001", 14 November 2001.

(99) Presidential Land Review Committee "Report of the Presidential Land Review Committee on the implementation
of the fast-track land reform programme 2000- 2002", 2003, p. 5.

(121)
Amnesty International interview with agriculture expert, Zimbabwe, February 2004; Presidential Land Review Committee "Report
of the Presidential Land Review Committee on the implementation of the fast-track land reform programme 2000-2002", 2003.

(122)
Amnesty International interview with agriculture experts, Zimbabwe, February 2004.

(123) Land was resettled under two models. The A1 model was aimed at resettling
people from the congested communal areas and is a small-holder package. The A2 model was aimed at potential black commercial
farmers, and therefore comprised larger parcels of land suitable for profitable commercial production.

(124) Presidential
Land Review Committee "Report of the Presidential Land Review Committee on the implementation of the fast-track land reform
programme 2000- 2002", 2003, p. 5.

(125) Presidential Land Review Committee "Report of the Presidential Land Review
Committee on the implementation of the fast-track land reform programme 2000- 2002", 2003, p. 31.

(126) Amnesty International
interviews with agriculture expert and a former government official, Zimbabwe, February 2004; Also the report of the Presidential
Land Review Committee on the Implementation of the Fast-track Land Reform Programme 2000 – 2002, page 67 noted the absence
of many A2 beneficiaries in Matabeleland South, stating "the majority being civil servants who tend to miss out on support
schemes, which was available during the working days of the week".

(139) Sachikonye, L.M., The Situation of Commercial Farm Workers after
Land Reform in Zimbabwe, May 2003.

(140) Sachikonye, L. M., Land Reform for
Poverty Reduction? Social Exclusion and farm workers in Zimbabwe, Paper
prepared for a conference on "Staying Poor: Chronic Poverty and Development Policy", ManchesterUniversity, April 2003.

(141) Sachikonye, L.M., The Situation
of Commercial Farm Workers after Land Reform in Zimbabwe, May 2003

(142) The commercial farmers were responsible for
paying teachers and health workers on the farm and for the upkeep of the building used. The provision of services to farm
workers prior to land reform was variable, and in many cases of poor quality.

(143) Amnesty International interviews
with farm workers and NGO personnel, Zimbabwe, February and June 2004.

(145) Catholic Institute for International Relations,
"Land, Power and Poverty: Farm workers and the crisis in Zimbabwe", p. 38.

(146) Amnesty International interviews with farm workers and NGO personnel, Zimbabwe,
February and June 2004; Presidential Land Review Committee "Report of the Presidential Land Review Committee on the implementation
of the fast-track land reform programme 2000- 2002", 2003.

Parliament of Zimbabwe, Second report of the Portfolio Committee on Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare on the plight of farm workers
and newly resettled farmers, third session - fifth parliament, presented to parliament on 16 May, 2003.

(147) Kibble, S. and Vanlerberghe, P., "Land, Power and Poverty: Farm
workers and the crisis in Zimbabwe, Catholic Institute for International Relations, 2000, ISBN
1852872403.

(148) Kibble, S. and Vanlerberghe, P., "Land, Power and Poverty: Farm workers and the crisis in Zimbabwe,
Catholic Institute for International Relations, 2000, ISBN 1852872403, p. 6; Amnesty International interviews with land and
agriculture experts, Zimbabwe, 2004.

(149) The Zimbabwe Network
for Informal Settlement Action, "The Situation of Children on Commercial Farms in Mashonaland Central", September 2001. See
also reports of the Farm Orphan Support Trust, Zimbabwe

(151) This case study was reported to Amnesty International in February
2004. Details have been changed to protect the identity of the farm workers.

(152) WFP, "Emergency Report n. 26", 27 June 2003.

(153) Price controls have been controversial. They
have limited food availability as control prices were set at levels at which the commodities could not be sold profitably.
However, for many poor households the control price in the only one they can afford. See reports of the Zimbabwe Vulnerability
Assessment Committee and the Zimbabwe NGO Food Security Network for fuller discussion on the issue of price controls.

(167) Amnesty International interviews with UN officials; See also: UN Integrated
Regional Information Networks, "Zimbabwe: Interview with WFP country director", 4 November 2003
(published on IRIN on 11
November 2003). In this interview
WFP’s Zimbabwe country director stated that "some donors are also unhappy with what they see as the inadequate information
provided by the government on what it has managed to do so far this year in commercially importing and distributing food in
the country…There’s a certain amount of guess going on – both government and the international community
trying to figure out what the other might be planning. It’s not easy to plan a humanitarian response in that situation."

(168)
ZIM VAC, "Zimbabwe Emergency Food Security and Vulnerability Report", 20 December
2002. See also: Loewenson, R., "Food security in the current humanitarian crisis", Training and Research Support Centre, March
2003, p. 4.

(169) Amnesty International interviews with NGO personnel, Zimbabwe, February and June 2004.

(174) In February and June 2004 Amnesty International spoke
to several organizations whose food assistance operations had been interfered with and whose staff had been intimidated. None
of the organizations wished to be identified; Also see: The Guardian, "Mugabe stops charities' famine work" 17 October 2002.

(175) Amnesty International interviews with UN officials
and NGO personnel, Zimbabwe, February and June 2004.

(196)
Amnesty International interviews with NGO personnel, September 2004.

(197) Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace/Legal
Resources Foundation. "Breaking the Silence Building True Peace (A report on the disturbances in Matebeleland and the Midlands
1980 - 1988)", 1997.

(198) Amnesty International report 1985.

(199) Ibid.

(200) Catholic Commission
for Justice and Peace/Legal Resources Foundation. "Breaking the Silence Building True Peace (A report on the disturbances
in Matebeleland and the Midlands 1980 - 1988)", 1997.

(201) A sworn statement dated 8 March 1984, in the files of CCJP details a meeting at Sibomvu in Gwanda District which soldiers called on 23 February 1984 at which a solider who claimed to be one of the leaders of the Gukuruhundi reportedly
referred to people having to eat each other.

(219)
Amnesty International interview with UN official, February 2004; See also Integrated Regional Information Networks, "Zimbabwe: Resettled farmers in need of aid", 18 November 2003.

(220) Amnesty International interviews with aid officials, Zimbabwe, February 2004.

(221) Article 1(b) pf the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery,
the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices similar to Slavery, which Zimbabwe ratified on 1 December 1998, states that
"the condition or status of a tenant, who is by law, custom or agreement bonded to live and labour on land belonging to another
persona and to render some [ ] service to such other person, whether for reward or not and is not free to change his status.

(222)
Amnesty International interviews with representatives of civil society and MDC, Zimbabwe, February and June 2004.

(223) See: Physicians for Human Rights, Denmark, "Vote ZANU-PF or starve", October 2002; Physicians for Human Rights, Denmark, "Hunger as a weapon of War: Zimbabwe since the elections", May 2002; Zimbabwe Electoral Supervisory
Network, various election reports available on: http://www.zesn.org.zw;

(224) International Crisis Group, "Zimbabwe at the Crossroads: Transition or Conflict?" 22 March 2002.